Finance Minister acknowledges CBCS chair nomination did not come from Supervisory Board

GREAT BAY--Today’s Question Hour in Parliament was characterized by frequent interruptions, procedural wrangling, and visible frustration among Members of Parliament, as Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs fielded questions about the Council of Ministers’ approved advice to appoint attorney Jairo Bloem as Chairperson of the Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Maarten (CBCS). MPs were frustrated with the Minister avoiding questions, repeating the same answer for several questions, and rephrasing questions altogether.

The Minister framed the situation surrounding Bloem as a “conditional nomination” and confirmed that his nomination did not originate from the CBCS Supervisory Board, which conflicts with Article 25 of the CBCS Charter. That provision requires a recommendation supported by a five-sixths majority of the Supervisory Board before a joint nomination by the Finance Ministers of both Curaçao and St. Maarten can move forward.

MP Darryl York asked the Minister to indicate where in the CBCS regulations, or “anywhere,” a “conditional nomination” is mentioned or legally permissible. Moreover, MPs, although having asked for documentation to verify such, have not been presented with any. The approved advice, for example, would clarify the verbiage used, but it should be noted that MPs are not typically privy to decisions and advices of the Council of Ministers.

The Minister argued that her decision to move the process forward was driven by the prolonged stagnation at the Central Bank. She pointed out that the CBCS has been without a formally appointed chair for more than four years and said this lack of leadership has prevented key matters from being addressed.

According to Minister Gumbs, continuing to wait for the Supervisory Board to present new recommendations would have left the Bank in a weakened position. She told MPs that “important issues within the CBCS require attention now” and insisted it was her duty as Minister of Finance to act in order to protect corporate governance and financial stability. MP Ardwell Irion was quick to point out, however, that circumstances cannot be used to justify ignoring the law and regulations, particularly if the CBCS itself did not make the nomination as required by its Charter.

The Minister explained that, after formally requesting recommendations from the Supervisory Board on two occasions without success, “a search was initiated, which search resulted in nine potential candidates, of which three were not interested, two had a conflict of interest, two were already engaged in too many roles, one was living abroad, and one candidate had a good profile to be nominated to go through the proper channels.”

She confirmed to MPs that “the Council of Ministers was not informed of the eight other potential candidates” and that she would not disclose names, noting that the process had to be finalized before any appointment could take place. When pressed on who carried out the search, the Minister stated that she “requested like-minded persons who are professionals in this field to assist with coming up with names of possible individuals.”

In response, MPs pointed out that the Charter of the CBCS outlines how nominations should take place under Article 25 and that a Minister cannot choose to go a different route. MP Irion cautioned of the consequences if such actions were applied to many other laws.

Chairing his first meeting as Vice Chairman of Parliament, MP Christopher Wever was challenged to maintain order and fairness in the meeting, which is governed by strict time limits.

The session began with MP Ardwell Irion posing the five central questions upon which the Question Hour public meeting was based. The questions focused on legality and procedure: whether the Council of Ministers had followed the correct process, why current Supervisory Board members have not received their national decrees, whether the required five-sixths majority was obtained, if potential conflicts of interest were considered, and what steps the Government is taking to protect the credibility and independence of the Central Bank. In her replies, Minister Gumbs emphasized that “no appointment” had been made, explaining that only a “conditional” nomination was submitted to the Council of Ministers on September 16.

While MPs pressed for clarity on the legal basis for such a “conditional” nomination, the Minister repeated her position and explained that she had requested fresh recommendations from the Supervisory Board, but after none were provided, she initiated a search with assistance from “like-minded professionals.”

During the debate, MP Sjamira Roseburg raised a series of legal questions about the process and its implications for good governance. She asked whether the Minister agreed that the Charter was designed to avoid political interference and to ensure that Government keeps a hands-off approach to such appointments. If that was the case, she questioned how the Minister could reconcile proceeding with a nomination in the absence of a Supervisory Board recommendation.

Roseburg also sought clarity on the procedure behind the search itself, asking how it was initiated, what steps were followed, and whether the related documents could be provided to Parliament confidentially. She pressed the Minister on whether the nine candidates identified were ever presented to the Supervisory Board and, if not, why the Board had been excluded from this phase.

The MP further asked when the Minister last had contact with the Supervisory Board on the matter and whether the current situation constituted an impasse. She inquired whether the temporary appointments of existing board members would be formalized, given that some members have served for years without formal decrees. Finally, she asked directly whether Jairo Bloem had been presented to the Supervisory Board before his name was advanced as a nominee, and if so, what the Board’s response had been. If not, she questioned why the Board had been left out of the process, which she suggested ran contrary to the spirit of the law.

The Minister said there was no political interference, and repeated much of the answers she provided to other MPs.

MP Dimar Labega asked the Minister for a direct answer on whether Jairo Bloem’s nomination had come from the Supervisory Board, asking for a simple yes or no. To which the Minister replied, “no.” He also questioned whether the Minister had ever held formal or informal discussions with the Board of the CBCS regarding Bloem’s candidacy and demanded clarity on how the additional nominees were identified, whether through a tender, applications, or personal outreach. Clarity was not provided.

The Minister said: “I remember the day in question to which the proposed name was mentioned informally to my person and, as a matter of fact, I countered with an additional name. And when I say informally, I know exactly where we were when that discussion took place. But again, that is not in accordance with the rules of order, you are supposed to send these recommendations in formally and that did not take place.”

MP Egbert Doran challenged the Minister to explain what process had been followed to arrive at the nominee, who executed the so-called search, and whether the Department of Legal Affairs had been consulted on the nomination rather than only on the appointment. MP Omar Ottley focused on transparency, asking whether the names of the committee or individuals involved in the search could be provided confidentially to Parliament, and why, in the absence of a Board recommendation, the Government did not instead follow the clear procedures laid out in Article 25 of the CBCS Charter.

‍