Coalition MPs contacted for comment, Finance Minister faces Question hour today in Parliament on CBCS situation

GREAT BAY--The Government of St. Maarten, through Minister of Finance Marinka Gumbs, will face a Question Hour on Monday at 1:30 p.m. in Parliament at the request of MP Ardwell Irion. The Minister is being called to answer the specific questions Irion submitted in advance, as well as other questions from MPs, regarding the reported decision by government to approve the advice to appoint attorney Jairo Bloem as the new Chairperson of the Supervisory Board of the Centrale Bank van Curaçao en Sint Maarten.

The Peoples' Tribune reached out to all coalition MPs for comment on the ongoing issue, given reports of internal upheaval in the coalition following a decision that allegedly did not follow Central Bank stipulations in law. Three MPs responded, namely Dimar Labega, Ludmila de Weever, and Chairlady Sarah Wescot-Williams.

What remains unclear is whether the Council of Ministers of St. Maarten followed Article 25 of the CBCS regulations when nominating and appointing members to the board, what precisely the advice approved by COM stated, how government arrived at Bloem’s nomination, and, if true, whether the CBCS has already rejected his nomination. Additional clarity is needed on whether and when government was in contact with the CBCS about the entire process, and whether meetings were held between the board and the Minister of Finance.

Article 25 points 3 and 4 of the CBCS regulations states that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisory Directors shall be appointed and removed jointly by the Countries by national decree. The appointment of the chairman shall be effected upon the joint nomination by the Ministers, which nomination shall be based on a recommendation made by a 5/6 majority of the Board of Supervisory Directors.

Three of the other six members shall be appointed upon the recommendation of each of the Countries. Each nomination shall be made by the Minister of that Country and shall consist of three persons. This nomination shall be effected on the basis of a recommendation made by the Board of Supervisory Directors. The members shall be appointed by the Countries jointly by national decree.

The board of the CBCS has publicly stated that its process to fill board positions is ongoing, which raises the question of the current stage of that process, since this would indicate how the COM of St. Maarten could nominate and or appoint a candidate. Furthermore, questions persist about the advice itself: was it a nomination, an appointment, or both; each option brings its own follow-up questions. Notably, if "appointment" appears anywhere as a decision point in that advice, it would contradict the Prime Minister's reported statement to Curacao media that news of Bloem's appointment was "onjuist" (not true).

Chairlady MP Sarah Wescot-Williams provided the most detailed response, however her response did not answer the foregoing questions. The Chairlady referred to a 2021 decision when the Central Bank made use of the legal provision allowing the court to approve SBOD nominations, due to the inability of the two governments or ministers to reach consensus on appointments. This, however, does not grant the governments of Curaçao or St. Maarten any right to deviate from the law.

She opined that “the debate now centers on whether St. Maarten’s lack of action since 2021 effectively created a vacuum in which the SBOD should, or not, have been the recommending party and on the distinction being made between the terms recommend, nominate, and appoint.” She further added that “The current proposal placed before COM appears to be a ‘nomination and conditional appointment’ of attorney Jairo Bloem.”

First, unless the advice is made public there is no way to verify whether the term “nomination and conditional appointment” was used, and second, there is no provision for a conditional appointment under CBCS regulations. Should COM have approved such an approach, it would have to justify any deviation from the regulations in the approved advice.

𝘐𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘗𝘴, 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨:

Has the Prime Minister or Minister of Finance clarified to you whether the advice to appoint Mr. Bloem was approved in COM? If so, was this approval for a nomination, an appointment, or both? If a nomination is included, do you know how his candidacy was arrived at and whether the Supervisory Board of the CBCS was involved? Have you, as coalition MPs, been assured that procedures were properly followed? If not, what do you believe government’s next steps should be? Finally, do you have any reservations about Mr. Bloem’s candidacy itself?

𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐚:

“There is a Question Hour Monday Sept. 22, 2025 at 1:30pm which was requested by MP Irion pertaining to the nomination and approval of COM to appoint Mr. Bloem. I will reserve my comments until the Minister of Finance has publicly made her statements in Parliament.”

𝐌𝐏 𝐋𝐮𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚 𝐝𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫:

“I was informed after the story was already in the media. That distinction between nomination and appointment only came after. I was informed of who the top candidate was out of a short list. I am not privy to a COM approval. I was informed about selection of candidate which was top from a list of 9. This update was verbal."

"No I have not been assured as yet. COM believes it’s legally done. Some MPs believe it was not. I am still gathering all information. I have reviewed no documents. Government should correct course if error was made."

"My personal feeling or opinion towards the candidate is inappropriate to share via this medium. I would prefer the respect to be updated by the Council of Ministers on major decisions like this selection/nomination/appointment prior to the information appearing in the media.”

𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐥𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐌𝐏 𝐒𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐡 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐭-𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐬:

“On Monday last, I was informed that the nomination of Mr. Jairo Bloem would be presented to the Council of Ministers (COM). According to the Central Bank’s regulations, the countries appoint the chairperson of the Supervisory Board of Directors (SBOD) based on a joint nomination from the two Ministers of Finance, following a recommendation by a 5/6 majority of the SBOD. That much is clear.

"What has complicated matters, however, is the precedent since 2021. At that time, the Central Bank made use of the legal provision allowing the court to approve SBOD nominations, due to the inability of the two governments or ministers to reach consensus on appointments. The SBOD had recommended the reappointment of the sitting chairperson (nominated by Curaçao), but both Ministers of Finance rejected this. The Court acknowledged this fact when it proceeded to appoint members directly.

"As a result, today the SBOD consists of five court-appointed directors, one of whom acts as chairperson. Sint Maarten, notably, still does not have a third member on the board. The appointments made by the Court have not yet been formalized by national decrees, as the Bank’s charter stipulates.

"The current proposal placed before COM appears to be a “nomination and conditional appointment” of attorney Jairo Bloem. The Bank’s charter is explicit: the appointment and removal of the chairperson must be done jointly by both countries, by national decree. Only thereafter should vetting and screening take place.

"The debate now centers on whether Sint Maarten’s lack of action since 2021 effectively created a vacuum in which the SBOD should—or not—have been the recommending party, and on the distinction being made between the terms recommend, nominate, and appoint.

The question that arises is: where do we go from here—for the institution, for the coalition, and for the country?

My recommendations are the following:

• Clarify the lawfulness of the trajectory followed. It is the responsibility of the COM to determine whether the process pursued by the Minister of Finance and approved by the COM aligns with the Bank’s charter and legal requirements.

• Reassess the system of appointments. This episode exposes how unworkable the current mechanism has become.

• Engage Curaçao directly. This matter touches on the foundations of our monetary union and the governance of our shared Central Bank.

• Do not lose sight of Mullet Bay, which is of vital importance to Sint Maarten and which, in my view, has not received the urgency it deserves.”

Wescot-Williams concluded that the impasse is not only about one nomination, but about how both countries uphold good governance in their joint institutions.

"In short, the present impasse is not only about one nomination. It is about how we uphold good governance in our joint institutions and whether our current structures truly allow for effective and timely decision-making. The way forward requires clarity, cooperation, and the political will to act in the best interest of both countries. And finally, the governing accord of the URSM/DP/PFP/SAM mentions as a critical issue to  “further examine the viability and benefit of the current monetary union”.

MP Sjamira Roseburg:

What I currently have to say about the matter, pending the answers from the Minister of Finance during tomorrow’s Question Hour, is the following from a legal perspective:

The debate at hand

The discussion over the nomination or (conditional) appointment of Mr. Jairo Bloem, and the overall composition of the Supervisory Board of the Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten (CBCS), has my full attention.

The Central Bank itself has recently confirmed that the process of appointments is still ongoing. This makes it even more urgent for the Minister of Finance to provide clarity. What procedure has been followed, and why, in 2025, are we still facing uncertainty and temporary appointments?

Article 25 is clear

In my legal view, Article 25 of the CBCS Charter leaves no room for interpretation. The procedure for appointments is strictly outlined:

Paragraph 3: “The chairperson of the Supervisory Board of Directors shall be appointed and dismissed by the Countries jointly by national decree. Appointment of the chairperson shall take place on a joint nomination of the Ministers, which nomination is based on a recommendation adopted by a 5/6 majority of the Supervisory Board of Directors.”

Paragraph 9: “If the Ministers fail to make a nomination, or the Countries fail to appoint a member within three months after the nomination, the president of the Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba shall, from that nomination, temporarily appoint a member. This member shall act until the appointment by the Countries has been completed.”

Paragraph 10: “The members of the Supervisory Board of Directors must be competent, of integrity, and independent, in accordance with the requirements set forth in the profile as established in the regulations referred to in paragraph 11.”

The proper sequence: recommendation to appointment

The law prescribes a strict order:

The Supervisory Board of Directors (SBOD) recommends candidates.

The two Ministers of Finance (Curaçao and Sint Maarten) make a joint nomination based on that recommendation.

The Countries, through national decree, then formalize the appointment.

Without this sequence, recommendation, nomination, appointment, there is no valid legal basis for appointments.

The situation since 2021

In 2021, the CBCS confirmed (press release PB2021-015) that five temporary members of the Supervisory Board were appointed by the President of the Joint Court of Justice because the two Countries failed to finalize appointments in time. This emergency measure was allowed under Article 25(9).

But what was designed as a temporary solution has now, alarmingly, persisted into 2025. The Charter is clear: court-appointed members only serve until the Countries formalize their appointments by national decree. That still has not happened. Why are we, four years later, in the same situation?

My concern

As of today, two temporary members remain unconfirmed, while a third position, including the crucial chairmanship, remains vacant. This means the Supervisory Board is not fully functional.

If steps have been taken outside of the procedure prescribed in Article 25, this constitutes a serious deviation. In that case, the Minister must explain why this was done and how the issue will be legally corrected.

It is time for clarity. The public, the financial sector, and Parliament deserve answers:

- Has the SBOD formally submitted its recommendations?

- Have the proper steps of recommendation, nomination, and appointment been followed?

- If not, why was the procedure deviated from, and when will this be rectified?

Recommendations and call to action

- End the temporary status – Members appointed temporarily since 2021 must now be formally appointed by national decree.

- Finalize appointments – The Minister of Finance must urgently complete the appointment process, as these were never intended to remain temporary.

- Ensure a complete board – Fill the third position and prioritize the appointment of a chairperson.

- Be transparent – Clarify whether the SBOD has fulfilled its role in submitting recommendations.

- Provide accountability – If the Charter was not followed, explain why, identify which procedure was followed instead, and state the legal basis for it.

- Make this a top priority – Beyond the chairmanship, the formal appointment of the current temporary members must be treated as an immediate priority.

This is my legal opinion, based on research conducted. A more detailed statement will follow once the official documents and the formal statement by the Minister of Finance have been made public.