PHILIPSBURG--In a ruling on Monday, the court firmly upheld the fundamental rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. The case, brought by two private citizens, challenged the Minister of Justice to safeguard constitutional freedoms. The plaintiffs highlighted the essential right to hold public demonstrations for any cause, asserting the importance of protecting freedom of expression.
The case was brought by two co-founders of SXM in Solidarity with Palestine, a grass-roots movement that sought to demonstrate peacefully in Philipsburg in November 2023 following the escalation of violence in Gaza. The group had planned a March of Love and Solidarity with Palestine, which was initially banned by the government.
In response, the co-founders of the movement, supported by human rights lawyers from the Public Interest Litigation Project (PILP) in the Netherlands and local attorney Brenda Brooks, launched legal proceedings against the government’s decision to prohibit the demonstration. Their challenge went beyond opposing the ban on this specific march; they aimed to defend the broader right to protest for any cause. As dedicated advocates, the initiators have also championed other fundamental issues, including LGBTQ rights in St. Maarten, underscoring their commitment to justice and equality for all.
The court’s ruling, handed down on Monday, affirms that the government’s prohibition of the SXM in Solidarity with Palestine march violated the constitutional right to freedom of assembly and expression. The judgment clearly instructed the government to revise its policies to better align with international human rights standards, as well as St. Maarten’s own constitutional guarantees.
In its verdict, the Court noted that the government had warned that a demonstration against the atrocities committed in Gaza could potentially lead to violent incidents, including the burning of the Israeli flag, referencing a social media post from several months earlier. The judge observed that the Minister of Justice, who did not appear in court on Monday, had made general claims in the contested decision, citing social media comments about the destruction of property and the burning of national flags. However, the judge concluded that the minister had failed to substantiate these claims in any way.
“Moreover, it was not specified how serious the alleged threats were or how they were connected to the planned demonstration by the plaintiffs,” the judge ruled, further highlighting that “the plaintiffs consistently emphasised and substantiated from the outset that their demonstration was intended to be peaceful.”
In their notification, the plaintiffs had included the following assurance: “All participants have committed to ensuring that the act of solidarity held on November 19, 2023, in Philipsburg remains peaceful. All agree that no slogans of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or any form of racial, ethnic, or religious discrimination will be expressed. We hope this letter of obligatory reporting suffices to guarantee the safety of participants and support peace and order in our beloved Philipsburg.”
The plaintiffs had acted in line with this intention, the court noted, holding consultations with the police prior to the planned demonstration, notifying them of any changes, and preparing a safety plan. “Given this, and considering that the respondent [the Minister of Justice – Ed.] has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the claims in the contested decision, there is no credible basis for fearing public disorder. The respondent was therefore not justified in imposing the ban in question," the court said.
The court declared the appeal well-founded and annulled the contested decision. “As this also nullifies the legal consequences of that decision, the court limits itself to its annulment,” the judge concluded.
The government has been ordered to pay the plaintiffs an amount of NAf. 1,400 in legal fees and NAf. 150 for court registry fees.
“We are incredibly pleased that the court acknowledged that the Minister of Justice denied the importance of this issue and the fundamental human rights at stake,” said Jelle Klaas, a human rights lawyer at PILP. “This ruling is not just for those who wanted to participate in this specific march, but for all citizens of St. Maarten who cherish their right to free expression and peaceful protest. Demonstrating is a right, not a privilege.”
The court’s decision also stressed the government’s responsibility to ensure that fundamental human rights are protected during public demonstrations. The judge noted that the government had failed to appear in court to defend its actions and emphasised that it is the government’s duty to evaluate any restrictions on peaceful protests carefully and justly.
“Moving forward, the government of St. Maarten must adjust its policies to align with these legal principles. Citizens should no longer need to apply for a permit to protest; they only need to notify the government in advance,” said Klaas. “We also urge the government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina, to consider educating civil servants, police forces and ministers on basic civil rights, to prevent future misunderstandings.”
This ruling represents a key moment for citizens’ rights to be respected and upheld, and sends a clear message to the government of St. Maarten to adjust its approach to demonstrations in the country, PILP lawyer Klaas emphasised. “Peaceful assembly and expression are fundamental rights that must be protected in a democratic society.”
