Court Annuls Access Restriction Imposed on VSA Chief of Staff Suenah Laville-Martis

GREAT BAY--The Court on Friday has ruled in favor of Suenah Laville-Martis, annulling the second access restriction imposed on her in connection with the ongoing matter surrounding her work status as Chief of Staff to the Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor.

Laville-Martis has been a civil servant with the Country of St. Maarten since January 2012 and has served as Chief of Staff to the Minister of VSA since November 26, 2024. The case arose after a January 7, 2026 incident in a government building involving an alleged statement directed at the Prime Minister, as well as an external social media post made by her husband. Following that, a January 7 letter signed by the Prime Minister imposed an initial order measure denying her access to all government buildings, service locations, and government ICT systems, including email, networks, applications, and digital platforms, while a formal suspension in the interest of the service was being prepared under Article 92(c) of the Landsverordening Materieel Ambtenarenrecht.

Laville-Martis challenged that first restriction before the court, and on February 2, 2026, she also filed a request for interim relief under Article 94 of the Regeling ambtenarenrechtspraak 1951. A second challenge followed after an email dated February 16, 2026 informed her that, pursuant to a January 16, 2026 Council of Ministers decision, she would remain barred from the Government Administration Building and from government-related functions or government buildings where the Prime Minister and Minister of General Affairs was present. At the same time, she was told she could continue carrying out her duties remotely, with full access restored to the ICT network, including her government email account and mobile phone. That same email stated that the January 7 order measure had been withdrawn. The matters were heard together by the court on March 2, 2026.

In its ruling, the court made clear that the first January 7 measure was not merely an internal service instruction or a short-term safety response. The judge found that, by denying Laville-Martis access to government buildings and ICT systems and effectively depriving her of the ability to perform her duties, the measure directly affected her legal position as a civil servant and therefore qualified as an appealable decision under Article 35 of the Rar. The court also rejected the argument that the first measure had been imposed on behalf of the Governor, finding that the January 7 letter did not show it had been issued in the Governor’s name, that no written mandate had been demonstrated, and that the Governor’s later knowledge of the matter or presence at the January 16 Council of Ministers meeting could not amount to valid ratification. The court further held that a general provision in the Organisatiebesluit Algemene Zaken could not override the specific allocation of authority in Article 45 of the LMA, which expressly designates the Governor as the competent authority.

Even so, the court did not proceed to annul the first January 7 access ban, because it found that measure had already been withdrawn by the February 16 communication. Since the first restriction had been revoked and the court found no continuing legal consequences or damage justifying further substantive review, Laville-Martis’ objection to that first measure was declared inadmissible. For the same reason, her request for interim relief was denied.

The court’s decisive finding concerned the second access restriction. It rejected the argument that the February 16 email was merely a non-appealable notification of a Council of Ministers decision. Instead, the court held that the second measure also had legal effect because it again restricted Laville-Martis’ access to government buildings and regulated the conditions under which she could perform her duties. As such, it too constituted an appealable decision under Article 35 of the Rar, and the court confirmed that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

On the substance of that second restriction, the court found that Article 45 of the LMA places the authority to impose an access ban or other order measure with the Governor as the competent authority. The judge found that it had neither been stated nor shown that the January 16, 2026 decision had been taken by or on behalf of the Governor. The court held that the Governor’s presence at the January 16 meeting could not be equated with an express and identifiable decision by the competent authority, nor was there evidence that the Governor later ratified the measure. Because the decision had been taken by an entity other than the authority designated by law, the court ruled that it violated both the principle of competence and the principle of legality. On that basis, the objection was declared well-founded and the second access restriction, dated January 16, 2026 and communicated on February 16, 2026, was annulled.

The court expressly did not rule on the material justification for the measure itself. Having found the second restriction unlawful on competence grounds, the judge said there was no need to assess the substantive content of the order measure.

In its final order, the court declared the objection against the first access restriction inadmissible, denied the request for interim relief, declared the objection against the second restriction inadmissible only insofar as it was directed against one respondent, and otherwise declared the objection well-founded. The court then annulled the second access restriction and ordered respondents 1 and 3, at the expense of the Country of St. Maarten, to pay procedural costs of Cg 1,400 to Laville-Martis, representing one point for the objection and one point for the oral hearing under the Besluit Proceskosten Bestuursrecht.

The judgment states that all parties may appeal to the Civil Service Appeals Board within 30 days after the decision is sent, although no appeal is possible against the ruling on the request for interim relief.

‍