Former MP Ordered to repay parliamentary salary after Court finds that he violated oath

GREAT BAY--“We took an oath” moved from talking point to a line the court is now willing to enforce with real consequences. The Court of Appeal has ordered former Member of Parliament Akeem Arrindell to forfeit Cg 75,372 in salary received during his term in Parliament, after concluding that he violated the oath required under Article 56 of the Constitution of St. Maarten. In that oath, taken on 10 February 2024, Arrindell declared that he had not given or promised anything in connection with his election. The Court found this to be false and ruled that the oath enabled him to take his parliamentary seat and receive salary, which therefore constituted an unlawful financial advantage.

The forfeiture amount corresponds to the salary received by Arrindell as a Member of Parliament, minus an estimated US $2,000 in costs. If the amount is not paid in full, the Court ruled that replacement detention of one year may be imposed.

In the same ruling, the Court of Appeal confirmed the earlier criminal conviction of Arrindell for election fraud related offenses. The Court held that he knowingly engaged in conduct connected to the 2024 election period involving vote buying. While the Court reiterated that election fraud in principle warrants an unconditional prison sentence, it considered several factors in reducing the penalty, including Arrindell's personal circumstances after leaving Parliament, the significant social impact of the proceedings in a small island community, and the fact that a forfeiture measure would be imposed.

The Court imposed a one year prison sentence, fully suspended, with a probation period of three years, along with 90 hours of community service. In addition, Arrindell is barred from serving as a police officer for six years and is disqualified from eligibility in elections for six years. According to the Court, these sanctions reflect the seriousness of conduct that undermines the integrity of the democratic process and the administration of justice.

The Court emphasized that honesty in judicial proceedings and integrity in public office are essential to maintaining public confidence in democratic institutions. The ruling of the Court of Appeal is now final, unless further legal remedies are pursued under applicable law.

The Court of Appeal also delivered its decisions in the related cases of co defendants F. and M., confirming both convictions. In the case of F., the original judgment was maintained, with one evidentiary omission noted by the Court. For M., the Court upheld the conviction but adjusted the sentence to a fully suspended six month prison term, a three year probation period, and 90 hours of community service.

The forfeiture ruling was issued in separate proceedings (ontnemingszaak) that followed an earlier first instance decision several weeks ago, in which the forfeiture request had been rejected. On appeal, the Court determined that no financial benefit could be directly linked to the vote buying itself, since it could not be established whether Arrindell would have been elected without the unlawfully obtained votes. The salary received on the basis of a false oath, however, was deemed an unlawful advantage and therefore subject to forfeiture.

‍