Dear Editor,
On Tuesday, December 11, the court has thrown out the claim made by the former coalition members that the government, dismissed on February 7, should be reinstated.
In an issued press release Mr. Clyde van Putten downplays the ruling by stating that complaining the Dutch to the Dutch proves to be futile and that the ruling was one of class justice. This compels me to state that, unlike many others, we are living in a country with a trias politica. This means that there is a strict separation between three independent powers in the nation: for legislation, administration, and jurisdiction. This guarantees the independence of our courts.
Van Putten’s statement furthermore is not very credible, nor is there much consistency seeing the euphory by his group when they won their injunction against the former acting governor in the same court.
At the court case, Van Putten cs. objected against the presence of the state attorney because according to them he was not authorized to represent his client in our jurisdiction. This objection was dismissed by the judge since the state attorney worked together with a lawyer registered by the court.
But what is more noteworthy is the fact that their lawyer, while present in Statia, was not allowed to represent his clients in court. He left the representation of their case against the state to his clients who have no experience in this matter at all. It appeared that their attorney is disbarred.
It is rather incredible that in a case against such a high-profile opponent the plaintiff uses a lawyer who is unable to represent them. It not only sheds doubt on the lawyer in question but one may also wonder why couldn’t or didn’t they hire a lawyer who could represent them in court?
In the same press release mention is made that the court considers the plaintiffs admissible as private persons. What the release omits to mention is that the PLP party was not admitted. The reason for this was that the party does not look after similar interests of other persons according to their statutes. The question then arises who these other persons might be? The other plaintiffs, or the people of Statia?
This brings me to another observation. The same art. 73 of the UN charter Van Putten cs. are basing their claims on mentions: “the members of the United Nations assume responsibility for the wellbeing of the inhabitants of these territories.” The Netherlands, as a member of the UN, does this by providing good healthcare accessible for all, education, security and justice and many more things.
We all can see the improvements that are taking place after the intervention on February 7 set against the standstill we were experiencing under the past coalition government. The latter did at no time assume responsibility for the wellbeing of the people of Statia. In their strive for autonomy no attention was given whatsoever to the wellbeing of the people of Statia. Also at no time with this court case any attention is given by the plaintiffs to the wellbeing of the people of Statia.
In the press release the validity of the constitutional status change in 2010 is questioned again and that the population has never opted for this. We can go back and forth on this for a long time. Fact is that in the 2014 referendum the population had the opportunity to make known that this was the wrong choice. They did not make use of this opportunity since the referendum was invalid. The latter was confirmed by the Untied Nations.
Salient detail is that the agreement to become a public entity was signed on June 20, 2007, for Statia by Mr. Roy Hooker, encouraged by Mr. Will Johnson, who signed on behalf of Saba. Both are now, with Mr. Clyde van Putten, strong opponents. The latter, as the member of the opposition at the time, also strongly supported the constitutional change. Everyone may remember his historic words: “You cannot eat autonomy.”
It is a pity and it portrays a sense of despair that among others an opinion from Minister Plasterk that the status as autonomous country for Statia is not realistic is deemed as racist. This, however, can surely be said about the tirade by former commissioner Charles Woodley in his radio program shortly after the ruling.
It is announced that more court cases are in the pipeline. Trying to get your right through the judicial system is a right we, unlike many others, have in the free country that we are living in. Even if the other party is the state. I wonder, however, when these people are planning to spend their time and energy on the matters that are really of concern to the people of Statia.
Koos Sneek
Democratic Party St. Eustatius
