DP MP Sarah Wescot-Williams.
~ As required by constitution ~
PHILIPSBURG--Democratic Party (DP) Member of Parliament (MP) Sarah Wescot-Williams said she will be spearheading the drafting of a referendum ordinance for St. Maarten, a move she believes is crucial to bringing key issues regarding a referendum on independence to the people.
She told reporters at a DP press conference on Friday that the country currently lacks a constitutionally required ordinance for referendums and she aims to fill that gap by initiating the process. Also at the press conference were DP MPs Dimar Labega and Viren Kotai (who joined virtually from abroad).
Wescot-Williams' decision comes in the wake of a motion tabled by National Alliance MP Ardwell Irion during the 2025 budget debate which resolved to urge government to start preparations this year for a consultative referendum on the issue of political independence for St. Maarten by December 31. Wescot-Willaims said the motion, which ended in a tie of seven votes for and seven votes against, was not practical as this is the responsibility of Parliament.
She explained that the first step will be to draft a referendum ordinance that meets the constitutional requirements, including specifying the types of issues that should be subject to a referendum. She emphasised that not all topics can be put to a public vote, as the constitution defines the scope of referendums in broad terms and Parliament has the power to decide which matters should be put to the people for a decision.
“There are certain issues of great importance – those that directly affect the public – that Parliament can decide to place before the people,” Wescot-Williams noted. “My goal is to ensure that the referendum process is structured in a way that respects the constitution and reflects the people's interests.”
She added that the drafting of the referendum ordinance will require input from all Members of Parliament as well as the High Councils of State and “different actors” in the country. “This will require consultation and collaboration with various stakeholders, including community leaders and experts,” she said. “We need to make sure the process is sustainable and that the population is informed and engaged.”
She underscored the importance of having a structured and well-thought-out approach to the matter, avoiding ad hoc measures. She believes the referendum process should not only be constitutionally sound, but also clear and accessible to the public.
Regarding Irion's rejected motion, based on Article 57b, paragraph 2, of Parliament's Rules of Order, if the votes tie, then taking of the decision is postponed to a next meeting. If the votes tie again, the proposal shall be deemed as having been rejected.
Wescot-Williams shared strong views against the content of the rejected motion.
“The motion, as it stands, is not executable, period. It’s crucial that we understand why this is the case,” Wescot-Williams said. “How can you simply go along with a motion that has no clear path to implementation?”
She stressed that the initiative to hold a referendum lies with Parliament, and that is where the discussion should begin. “Holding a referendum is the responsibility of Parliament, not just a decision that can be thrown into the lap of the government. The process must be carefully structured, and it begins with a thorough debate in Parliament,” she explained.
According to the MP, the constitution is clear in outlining the steps for initiating a referendum. It states that a referendum can only follow a decision made by Parliament or the government. This means that before any referendum can take place, Parliament must first engage in a comprehensive discussion, make a decision, and then seek the opinion of the public on that decision.
“We cannot just spring this on the people,” Wescot-Williams warned. “We must first do the work in Parliament, come to a decision, and then ask the population what they think. It’s not a matter of whether a referendum should take place—it’s about following the constitutional requirements, which say Parliament must lead the process and involve the people only after a decision is made.”
She also raised concerns about the timing of the motion, questioning whether it’s the right approach to introduce such an important topic without first consulting colleagues and engaging in deeper discussions. "This is too important an issue to just rush through," She said. "Wouldn’t it make more sense to have a proper sit-down with your colleagues before moving forward with something like this?”
She said the key issue isn’t whether a referendum should happen, but whether the proper procedures are followed. "Our constitution clearly lays out the steps for a referendum. We need to have a discussion, make a decision, and then ask the people how they feel about it," she stated.
