MPs York, Irion intensify calls for clarity on CBCS chair process, legal advice

GREAT BAY--Members of Parliament Darryl York and Ardwell Irion used today’s public meeting of Parliament with the Minister of Finance to press for fuller disclosure and procedural clarity regarding the recent central bank chairmanship trajectory, the chain of legal advice that informed government decisions, and the way the matter was communicated to the public.

MP York opened by asking the Minister of Finance to define what was meant by a political firestorm, since the phrase, first used by the Minister in her presentation, framed much of the public debate. He requested a clear record of documents and process controls, including whether the Supervisory Board of Directors ever shared a shortlist of candidates with the Minister, whether the step described as a conditional nomination received review by the Legal Affairs Department of Government before reaching the Council of Ministers, and where in the CBCS Charter the concept of a conditional nomination exists.

He queried the status of negotiations with Curaçao and asked for proof of any understanding regarding chairmanship rotation. He also asked whether the candidate was presented to the Supervisory Board before the matter went to the Council of Ministers, since the order of steps is central to compliance with the Charter.

York then focused on consistency. He asked the Minister to reconcile references to a committee with later references to trusted confidants. In other words, he noted that the Minister first said a group of nine "like minded" people identified the eventual nominee (now former nominee Bloem), while on Wednesday she referred to confidants. He wants an explanation of how, who, what is this group of people.  

He further sought clarity on whether there had been a formal application process or whether names were sourced informally and, in fact, casually. He asked why a candidate could see an advice about himself while Members of Parliament were told that such advice could not be shared. He requested access to all relevant documentation tied to the conditional step and its supporting advice, stating that consistent documentation is necessary to assess whether the process followed the Charter and good governance standards.

MP Irion concentrated on the legal basis and communications. He asked whose legal advice guided the Minister at key moments, specifically whether the advice originated in Cabinet Legal Affairs or from an external firm, and why internal Legal Affairs was not used or placed on record for a matter of this significance. He alleged that the legal advice that the Minister received was from Brooks & Associates, a firm owned and operated by someone directly connected to the coalition. He questioned if this was not a conflict or breach of integrity.  

With regards the group of "like minded people" who supposedly identified Bloem as a suitable candidate, Irion coined a new phrase in the debate: "a group of friends." Irion challenged the premise that an informal group of friends or confidants could select names for such a critical post.

He asked when this group operated, how it arrived at its recommendations, and what timeline governed its work. He asked the Minister to address statements that nothing occurred under the previous minister (himself), citing letters that refer to a prior nomination and screening timelines. He requested that those letters, and any related correspondence with the Supervisory Board, be shared in full. He asked whether political leaders were informed about the candidate’s status and whether the candidate assisted in drafting or reviewing advice about his own nomination.

Both MPs underscored the need for full adherence to the CBCS Charter. They stressed that the record must show a recommendation from the Supervisory Board, a joint nomination by both Ministers of Finance, the completion of screenings by national authorities, and joint appointment by national decrees. They stated that Parliament expects the government to provide the correspondence, the legal advice lineage, and the precise timeline of steps, including any role played by informal advisers, so that compliance and transparency can be evaluated on the basis of documents rather than interpretations.

Both MPs also asked the Minister about certain statements the now former nominee made in court including whether or not the government instructed him to go to the radio and give an interview.

‍