Court hearing reveals new details on Bloem’s nomination for CBCS

Disclaimer: 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺, 𝘸𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘖𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘦𝘳 9, 2025. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴-𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘵.

GREAT BAY--A case meant to handle defamation, might have revealed more significant issues for the governing coalition. Attorney Jairo Bloem appeared before the Court of First Instance today in his defamation case against Member of Parliament Ardwell Irion. Bloem claims that MP Irion made damaging public statements about his professional reputation following his nomination by the Government of Sint Maarten for the position of Chairperson of the Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten (CBCS).

Although 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘦 was not present in court, several witnesses who attended the proceedings described testimony that went beyond the issue of defamation and raised new questions about the process surrounding Bloem’s nomination.

According to multiple witnesses, Bloem told the court that his public radio interview where he defended his nomination and the process and reasoning thereof, had been done at the request of the Democratic Party (DP) leadership. Witnesses said Bloem stated that he was asked to go on air to clarify the process behind his appointment. He later added that “all political leaders of the coalition were aware” of his nomination long before it became public, so he did not understand what the uproar was about. Witnesses explained that Bloem also claimed political upheaval and power plays within the Democratic Party.

Witnesses further recounted that Bloem revealed it had taken him seven months to decide whether to accept the position after it was first proposed to him. That timeline appears to contradict earlier explanations given publicly regarding when the nomination process began as well as, according to the Minister of Finance, the appointment of unidentified like-minded people to vet and select nominees.

In another revelation, witnesses said Bloem acknowledged that he had personally reviewed the official advice related to his own nomination, an unusual admission, given that nominees are typically not involved in reviewing or advising on their own appointment files. He reportedly told the court that the document had been sent to him directly by the minister's cabinet and that he had discussed its contents with both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.

The proceedings also featured exchanges between Bloem and MP Irion’s legal teams, focused on what was actually said in Irion’s media interview versus how it was reported. Arguments centered on whether the MP’s comments about Bloem’s “track record” and/or “suitability” were factual criticisms of the appointment process or defamatory statements about Bloem’s character. The judge reportedly questioned both parties about their intent and the accuracy of media coverage and on social media platforms.

One witness described the courtroom as “tense” as Bloem, described as "at times emotional," defended his position while elaborating on matters far beyond the scope of the original defamation claim. Several attendees said the judge had to intervene multiple times to keep the discussion focused on the case itself.

The hearing, initially intended to address Bloem’s claim that MP Irion defamed him in comments about his suitability for the CBCS chairmanship, has now taken on wider significance for the governing coalition. The testimonies shared in court suggest deeper political involvement in the nomination process than previously disclosed.

A verdict in the defamation case is expected to be delivered next week Thursday, October 16, 2025.

𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺, 𝘸𝘦 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘍𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘖𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘦𝘳 9, 2025. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴-𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘺, 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘵.

‍