Dear Editor,
My wife and I were prosecuted for over ten years by the St. Maarten Prosecutor’s Office in the so-called “Bumo” case. During all this time and even despite the fact that the reporter Mr. Hilbert Haar, Chief Editor of the then Today newspaper, wrote and published in excess of 50 very negative and factually largely incorrect articles about my wife and I, we never went public. This decision was based on a firm belief that legal cases are fought in court and not in the public media. Our decision was also based on respect for and trust in the St. Maarten court system.
Much has happened ever since.
Ultimately, seven of the eight charges brought against us by the St. Maarten Prosecutor’s Office were dismissed by the Court of Appeals. What remained was a sentence for not having filled out a tax return form correctly. Therefore, we received a fine and community service. Mind you, the tax return form in question was filled out and submitted by a European Dutch accountant – a professional and previous employee of the St. Maarten Tax Inspectorate Office, whose independent services years after his tenure with the St. Maarten Tax Inspectorate Office were contracted to file same taxes correctly. This specific matter is now subject of cassation with the Supreme Court in the Netherlands. For us, it’s at the end of the day also a principle matter.
After thoroughly considering all matters, with ample experience gained over the last 10+ years, also a much better understanding of how our Courts and the stakeholders/organisations within the justice system function, complete silence exercised by us in the past is simply no longer a realistic or sensible option. Openness and transparency are needed to try to prevent repeated structural misuse of powers by those with prosecuting authority. As a member of the St. Maarten Parliament and a St. Maarten man designated by a large group of St. Maarten citizens to represent the interest of St. Maarten, I moreover owe all constituents an explanation.
To understand what is presently going on we have to go back to the Bumo case.
Several severe violations by the Prosecutor’s Office in the Bumo case, the court’s records show, and I challenge the Prosecutor’s Office to disprove any of the following statements, that during the Bumo case the following severe violations were committed by members of the Prosecutor’s Office and/or the Kingdom Collaboration Team, popularly known as RST:
A. A prosecutor took and used confidential information during a house search and, when confronted with this violation, initially denied everything trying to hide matters;
B. The Prosecutor’s Office vehemently tried to prevent the prosecutor in question to be heard under oath by the judge of instruction, on irregularities committed during the investigation;
C. A member of the RST made up a statement, which had to be made by law expeditiously after a certain event, five months thereinafter. Worse, she used the content of statement of a European Dutch technical assistant and investigator working for the St. Maarten Inspectorate of Taxes, to draft her own statement and to make sure that the stories were coordinated. This all was corresponded in writing with the prosecutor who supervised, and as such was very much aware of all these activities. It happened under her watching eye;
D. When the Court finally permitted the interrogation of the prosecutor and also of a member of the RST, the truth became apparent, namely that not only were several violations committed, but that they seriously tried to shove them under the carpet;
E. The prosecutor was subsequently removed from the case by the back then chief prosecutor and not too long thereafter, returned back to the Netherlands;
F. The member of the RST transferred to Curaçao;
G. Nobody was, however, held accountable, let alone punished, for anything;
H. A hearing by the judge of instruction of an accountant who gave tax advice and filed tax return forms was interrupted, as per the request of the Prosecutor’s Office, to allow this accountant to go back to his files and get the pertinent required data. However, immediately thereafter and before this accountant could be heard again by the Judge of Instruction, members of the RST approached and interrogated the accountant separately. The result: a vague and unclear statement and we never got the opportunity to finish hearing the accountant by the judge of instruction, because the accountant shortly thereafter left to the Netherlands.
After approximately six years of being allegedly investigated, during which time my wife voluntarily stepped down as a minister and wasn’t able to apply for various functions because of screening, my wife took the initiative and challenged the Prosecutor’s Office in Court to either put up or shut up. The Court gave the Prosecutor’s Office a short deadline to, if wanted, file charges and the latter rapidly filed eight charges. This, following obviously barely any and also such a corrupt investigation.
During all this time, the good name and reputation of my wife and I as St. Maarten citizens and public servants, were, however, seriously disparaged. The Today newspaper most certainly didn’t devote 50 articles to correct our good name and reputation after the verdict of the Court of Appeals – more explicitly, to explain that at the end of the day we were found guilty of having filled out a tax declaration form incorrectly because of a very technical interpretation of whether or not something constituted taxable income, an interpretation for which my wife did not only seek and pay for professional tax advice, but concerning a tax return form that was filed out and filed by the same accountant.
Why a new investigation?
Buncampers must be found guilty of something. How else does the Prosecutor’s Office justify intensive investigation, multiple house searches and a lot of investigative measures, all during a time span extending 10 years and certainly all with heavy price tags – this, to also accommodate the lifestyle of the European prosecuting bodies on St. Maarten?
In April 2018 it was already pretty obvious, specifically because of various witness statements from experts who testified before the judge of instruction, that the verdict of the Court of First Instance would be reversed by the Court of Appeals. It should as such not come as a surprise to anyone that the Prosecutor’s Office decided to in that month commence a new investigation against my wife and me. The new investigation was, however, started by the Prosecutor’s Office in Curaçao and was this time led by the TBO – thus not the St. Maarten Prosecutor’s Office, not even the RST and certainly not the St. Maarten National Detectives Team.
I’m in possession of emails wherein the St. Maarten Prosecutor’s Office states that this isn’t their case, but a so-called TBO case. Thus, whilst the government of St. Maarten didn’t file any charges against me, a TBO prosecutor in Curacao decides to start an investigation on me in July 2018. The irony of the matter is that he subsequently tried to justify this investigation by referring to so called “tips” received firstly in August 2018.
Check the dates, people. I have the above in writing from them.
As a civil servant back then, the normal procedure would have been for the National Detectives to conduct and in any case lead any investigation. This has always been the norm, but norms must give way to preconceived purposes: “targeting opinionated St. Maarten people, certainly leaders.”
Problems and fires on the St. Maarten dump
For 15 years (from the year 2000 until 2015), a St. Maarten company that is the daughter of a large Dutch multinational managed the dump. During that time there were several fires on the dump and large ones in 2011 and 2014. During that period the fires regretfully even cost people their lives. I, however, never saw the Prosecutor’s Office investigate anything. Why should it? The dump was being managed by European Dutch people who always acts correctly … right?
In 2011, government representatives met with members of the St. Maarten Prosecutor’s Office at the Governor’s office. The St. Maarten Prosecutor’s Office went its merry way thereafter, as there were no extra budgetary monies to do anything additional at the landfill and everyone acknowledged that nothing more could be done without funding.
In 2015 the St. Maarten government held a public tender for the management of the dump. This time the locally owned company Robelto & Son won the bid. Its offer was at least NAf. 1.5 million lower than the other one of the same daughter company of a Dutch multinational. However, now that locals managed the dump for nota bene significantly less money than what the European Dutch wanted, the exact same problems for years at the dump were suddenly rooted in corruption. This is self-evident or isn’t it? … This sudden obvious corruption in any case required another round of intensive and expensive investigation.
So, it came to be that in April 2018 during the presentation “The way forward” about the dump and waste handling in St. Maarten, the St. Maarten Prosecutor’s Office in its presentation started alluding to criminal activities ongoing at dump. No stone was subsequently left unturned in an effort to substantiate this statement.
I had to be investigated because the Prosecutor’s Office claims that the tender procedure won by Robelto & Son, that once again bid a whole NAf 1,500,000 lower per year than the daughter of the European Dutch multinational, was rigged. I profited therefrom because the accountant firm of my wife rendered independent accounting services to Robelto & Sons and my son worked for a while for this company.
The Prosecutor’s Office is, however, in possession of a whole lot of seized files and documents that all clearly show that both my wife’s accounting firm and my son worked hard for their keep. How I profited, or could have profited, from their sweat and hard labour, remains elusive. But then again, are St. Maarten people nowadays even entitled to earn a decent living on their Island? Or should all jobs and nice assignments continue to exclusively go to European Dutch companies and firms?
Mind you, until this day I have to yet learn or understand how the Prosecutor’s Office thinks that I could have realised that the bid was won by Robelto & Sons. It’s unclear to me if it even understands that there is a Council of Ministers that decides thereon as per advice from the Secretary General of the Ministry of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure VROMI, which decision is subsequently sent for approval to the governor. Somewhere, somehow, I nevertheless magically controlled the minds and decision-making of everyone involved.
The Prosecutor’s Office clearly realises the weakness, not to say ridiculousness, of its assertions, because it decided to lay down more anchors – this, by also claiming that I profited from the bid awarded to Robelto & Sons by not exercising the correct governmental control and supervision on their works; that responsibility is suddenly exclusively vested in my person.
This all whilst it’s clear as day that exactly same governmental control and supervision was always exercised, thus also during the 15 years tenure of the daughter of the European Dutch multinational. But back then this governmental supervision and control was adequate. More so, all stakeholders including the Prosecutor’s Office established in 2011 that nothing more could be done without significantly more money that St. Maarten clearly simply didn’t have. Speaking of double standards …
Since my wife and I were once again both suspects, considering what we experienced the first time around when being investigated and our codified right not to have to testify against one and other, we repeatedly asked the TBO prosecutor to be questioned by a judge of instruction – this, instead of a member the TBO. We also asked time and time again, lastly in February 2020, to hear all the other suspects or so-called witnesses before the same judge of instruction in an open and transparent manner.
The TBO prosecutor, however, structurally rejected these requests, without, by the way, giving any reason – certainly, no plausible reason was ever given.
Request to prosecute me as a member of the St. Maarten Parliament
The same TBO prosecutor, now with the hat on as the designated representative of the attorney general, adopted the standpoint that I cannot see absolutely any document in the investigation that his office has allegedly been conducting from April to July 2018 and as such, for over two years.
I must now defend myself as a St. Maarten parliamentarian in the procedure wherein the Court of Appeals will decide if I can be prosecuted, without insight into any of the investigating documents, with exception of the generic so-alleged summary report made by the TBO. There is no way even for me to check if what is stated in the, by the way, very brief summary corresponds with what witnesses (names mentioned) said or didn’t say.
This, whilst a few persons approached and informed me that they had been questioned by members of the TBO, who told then in no uncertain terms that unless they testified in a very specific manner, tax charges would be brought up against them, and they would be made a suspect or even possibly arrested. One of these persons had his lawyer confirm same to the TBO officers (prosecutor), which confirmation not surprisingly remained unanswered until this date.
The other one, who also happens to be a suspect in same investigation, apparently decided to say after approximately six previous statements to the TBO that he gave me a bribe. The same person, however, consistently stated to other persons, and luckily some are coming forward, that he never gave me a dime, but was unduly pressured in stating that.
Still, the prosecutor/substitute attorney general refuses to have everyone heard by the judge of instruction.
Worse, he refuses to give me access to and insight into absolutely any document or alleged finding of the “investigation”.
Great was my surprise and dismay when the presiding justice of the Court of Appeals Committee, who handles my case, decided to honour the request of the prosecutor/substitute attorney general not to give me or my defence attorney absolutely any, but any, data.
Consequently, I am the only person with a public function with authority in the Dutch Caribbean islands whose prosecution is being sought, who has absolutely no access to anything in the so-called investigation file but is still expected to defend himself against the unknown.
The other great irony in this matter is that when firstly asked by the same presiding justice why the prosecutor/substitute attorney general doesn’t want me to have access to the file, “investigation interest” was stated by prosecutor/substitute attorney general as the reason. Be aware, same prosecutor/substitute attorney general started contending suddenly and after more than two years of alleged investigation that he needs more time to investigate me. That begs the question why then already demand to prosecute me if you apparently need more time to investigate me?
When asked, again by same presiding justice, how long he would need to finish investigating me, the prosecutor/substitute attorney general said one week. Nevertheless, approximately three weeks thereafter, at the end of July 2020, his request to withhold all documents from me was honoured by the presiding justice.
Supported by also expert legal advice from the Netherlands, I thereafter asked the presiding justice to recuse herself from the case because of an obvious lack of impartiality and because she had during the process steered too much in the direction of the prosecutor/substitute attorney general – also, because our legislator only sanctions withholding certain specific data, and not the whole file.
My request was denied by the Court of Appeals that, although the law allows for me to file same request even during an ongoing hearing, deemed that it had to be filed immediately after the presiding justice took the disputed decision at the end of July 2020 and not two months thereafter. The Court of Appeals, moreover, redundantly stated that it would not have honoured the petition anyway, because it’s basically impossible to state that a justice is not impartial, based on a preliminary decision taken during a decision. I was also told that it was not apparent that the disputed decision could ultimately negatively impact the outcome of the case and/or reflect in any way, shape or form, on the final outcome thereof.
My arguments, that:
A. The decision of the presiding justice is not a preliminary one, but a final decision in a closed hearing procedure;
B. There will possibly not be another procedure if prosecution permission is not granted; and
C. The consequence of that decision, namely me having to defend myself against the unknown, is very severe and also as such most certainly reflects on the case and the possible outcome thereof,
were all basically immediately dismissed. Actually, they didn’t even warrant a motivated reaction, because none was given.
A new hearing was scheduled in my case for November 13, 2020, a full four months after the prosecutor/substitute attorney general stated that he only needed one week to allegedly conclude his investigations. Both before and during the hearing, I asked for at least a blackout version of the investigative file and I also asked the presiding justice of the Court of Appeals Committee to confirm whether or not they would be possibly using the content of documents completely unbeknownst to me in their decision making.
The presiding justice confirmed on November 12, 2020, that the Court of Appeals would, if desired, use the content of documents that are being withheld from me for decision-making. The same presiding justice furthermore refused my renewed request at the hearing for access to the file and thus data and even for a file wherein the prosecutor/substitute attorney general blacks out matters that he doesn’t want me to read.
I was told that the one week that the prosecutor/substitute attorney general at the hearing of November 13, 2020, termed a “fictive” week, was one week after the Court of Appeals takes a decision on the request to prosecute me – so, in reality, an indefinite period of time that in theory could range from days to years, not a pre-set amount of time, calculated considering the time needed for performing alleged specific investigation actions.
Talking about the rigging matters….
The presiding justice also stated that from inception the prosecutor/substitute attorney general had requested for one week until after decision-making by the Court of Appeals, meaning, in short, that I am under no circumstances, even if the alleged further investigation is concluded before the hearing, to get access to the file before the hearing. Also logically meaning that under no circumstance will I have the opportunity to learn the content of documents that can be used in the decision-making against me, before my hearing.
By the way, it was as per the presiding justice obvious that this was what the prosecutor/substitute attorney general had requested from inception, because that was also written subsequently by same presiding justice of the Court of Appeals in a report on the first hearing.
Whilst that piece of information that it was indeed written is correct, rest assured that this statement was never made. Instead the prosecutor/substitute attorney general was too busy during the first hearing back-pedalling on his statement that none of the lawyers of the other suspects in the case had ever requested any data in the years wherein the investigation was conducted. The back-pedalling and factual misrepresentation started after I told him that the attorney of one of the other lawyers with whom I had met the day before, showed numerous requests to same prosecutor/substitute attorney general for receiving a copy of the file and was told that such was regretfully delayed because of technical, apparently COVID-19-related issues.
Obviously, this blatant misrepresentation of the facts also didn’t prevent the prosecutor/substitute attorney general from getting his request not to give me access to absolutely anything honoured, back then and again on November 13, 2020, by the presiding justice.
On November 13, 2020, I filled a new request for the presiding justice to recuse herself because of impartiality – this time, specifically in view of her decision to have the leeway to use information unbeknownst to me, in the decision-making in my case.
All I’m asking for is a fair chance to defend myself against a 23 million yearly funded Dutch government pet project to lock up the St. Maarten public servants and St. Maarten people.
Maybe, I should also file my complaint at the Integrity Chamber and see what will roll out of this one.
May God watch over our people in the police state wherein we are living.
Claudius Buncamper
Member of Parliament of St. Maarten
