Audit Chamber declines Soul Beach review

GREAT BAY--The General Audit Chamber has formally declined to carry out a parliamentary-requested investigation into the financial and administrative handling of the Soul Beach event, citing legal limitations on its mandate and lack of clear separation between public and private funds. While the Chamber expressed appreciation for Parliament’s confidence, it concluded that it is not in a position to execute the requested inquiry.

The decision by the Audit Chamber effectively renders the motion upon which the request was made, moot.

The motion is question was presented by Member of Parliament Ardwell Irion on June 23, 2025 during the public meeting of Parliament on the 2025 budget. It called for a full independent review of the financial and administrative handling of the Soul Beach event was narrowly passed in Parliament by a vote of 8 to 7. Notably, in order to be adopted, the motion received support from two members of the governing coalition, MPs Ludmila de Weever and Sjamira Roseburg, who voted in favor.

The motion requested that the General Audit Chamber investigate the application and approval process, budgetary decisions, financial and in-kind contributions, and the legal compliance of the Soul Beach event. It also called on government, based on the findings of the review, to develop a supplementary policy to the Subsidy Ordinance that would clarify eligibility, establish consistent procedures, define ministerial responsibilities, and improve transparency for large-scale events receiving public funds. The motion further requested that both the findings of the review and a draft policy be submitted to Parliament for consideration.

“Our authority is limited to examining public funds and the financial management of government, including subsidies granted,” the letter states. “However, we are not empowered to investigate private parties beyond tracing the use of public funds.”

In the case of the Soul Beach event, the Chamber noted that the financial flows appear to be mixed, combining public contributions with private sponsorships and revenues. This lack of separation makes it “practically impossible to determine precisely which expenditures were financed with public funds,” and therefore falls outside the Chamber’s legal remit.

The Chamber did, however, outline four alternative avenues Parliament may consider to pursue further clarity on the matter:

•Request further information from Government:

Parliament may formally request detailed explanations from the responsible Minister(s) under Article 68 and Article 69 of the Rules of Order.

•Hold hearings via the Central Committee (Art. 22 RoO):

The Central Committee can hold hearings, consult external experts, or request specific documentation to clarify legal and financial issues around the Soul Beach event.

•Inquire with other entities involved in supporting the event:

Parliament may seek information from other entities such as ministries, government-owned companies, or sponsors that may already possess relevant data or performance indicators.

•Engage an external entity:

Parliament could contract a third-party financial bureau under Article 22 RoO to conduct an in-depth review. Unlike the Audit Chamber, such an entity can be instructed directly on the scope and focus of the review and is not restricted to public funds.

The Audit Chamber emphasized that a parliamentary inquiry, while within the legislature’s power, should be considered only as a last resort due to the significant resources required.

“Based on the above, and after careful review, we must respectfully decline to conduct the specific inquiry as requested,” the Chamber concluded. “We remain available to discuss any of the alternatives mentioned above, should Parliament wish to pursue them.”

The Audit Chamber’s response reaffirms its constitutional independence and its commitment to sound financial oversight, while reinforcing the importance of clear legal mandates when public and private finances intersect.

𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭

There has long been debate over whether a minister should have the discretion to grant subsidies to public or private institutions, provided that due diligence about the event is conducted, followed by the recipients being held accountable for the use of public funds and submit the necessary reports, i.e, show how the funds were spent in accordance to what was discussed and agreed upon.

Minister of TEATT Grisha Heyliger-Marten has taken this a step further by introducing an approach that not only emphasizes financial accountability but also seeks to measure the broader national return on investment.

Her ministry now examines how subsidized events contribute to the country as a whole, particularly within the hospitality and tourism sectors, for which she holds responsibility. The goal is to determine whether these events truly stimulate economic activity and align with the Ministry’s mandate.

This approach is significant when contrasted with previous practices, where successive administrations provided public funding to private events without any transparent follow-up or reporting on the benefits to the country.

One recent example is the set of alternative events funded by government in April 2024, which coincided with the hosting of St. Maarten’s signature event; Carnival. Despite public interest, and near catastrophic effect on Carnival itself, no official report has been presented to date outlining how public resources, including the use of Ministry of VROMI services to clear land, were utilized or justified.

Another notable case is the Tempo affair, in which the government disbursed a record US $400,000 to the private entity behind the project, along with other forms of logistical support.

No clear public accounting or post-event analysis was ever provided, leaving lingering questions about how taxpayer money was spent and whether the country received a tangible return.

‍