"There is no other way to nominate, period" MP Peterson lays out legal path on CBCS chair

GREAT BAY--MP Raeyhon Peterson used the public meeting on the Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Maarten with Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs to set out a detailed legal position on the legal process to nominate and appoint a board member of CBCS and to request documents that can verify compliance with the CBCS Charter. He also asked the government to state whether it will co-develop the Mullet Bay master plan with Sun Resorts so that public objectives are embedded from the start.

MP Peterson restated that Article 25, paragraph 3 of the CBCS Charter governs the chairmanship process. In his view, a ministerial nomination exists only if it is based on a prior recommendation from the Supervisory Board of Directors that meets the Charter threshold for a chair. He said the Council of Ministers cannot nominate, whether conditionally or otherwise, in the absence of that recommendation. "It is abundantly clear," he said, noting that anything else is not in accordance to the law.  

He asked the Minister if the conditional step be withdrawn and that the process be returned to the sequence set out by the Charter. He listed the sequence as a board recommendation for chair that meets the Charter threshold, a joint nomination by both Ministers of Finance, completion of the screenings required by the countries, and joint appointment by national decrees in both countries.

On meetings and procedural steps, MP Peterson asked whether, after the July meeting that addressed the former CBCS director, the Minister of Finance requested a meeting with the Supervisory Board to take up the chair vacancy specifically. He asked whether the Supervisory Board attempted to meet on that topic, whether dates were proposed, and whether the lack of progress resulted from availability constraints of the minister, the board, or both. He requested that the correspondence be shared with Parliament, including emails and letters that show requests, replies, proposed dates, and outcomes, so that the record can reflect which steps were taken and when.

On temporary members and outstanding appointments, MP Peterson noted that once recommendations exist for board members, the next step is with the countries. He asked why temporary status has not been regularized where recommendations and screenings are complete. He asked for an update that identifies each pending recommendation, the status of screenings for each, and the subsequent ministerial actions that move the appointments to decree.

On legal advice, MP Peterson requested the opinions that guided the government. He asked for internal legal advice produced by the administration and any external legal opinions. He asked that these be provided to Parliament so that the legal path can be assessed against Article 25, paragraph 3 and against the government’s internal standards for legal review.

On ENNIA and Mullet Bay, MP Peterson asked whether the government will co-develop the master plan with Sun Resorts. He said co-development can embed public goals in the plan, including land use parameters, infrastructure, access, and economic benefits. He asked the government to state its position on co-development and to explain how public objectives would be secured if Sun Resorts leads the planning process.

MP Peterson concluded by saying that compliance should be demonstrable through documents and dates rather than through interpretations alone. He asked the government to provide the meeting correspondence, the legal advice chain, and the current status of recommendations and screenings, and he reiterated his request that the conditional step be retracted so that the chair process proceeds strictly under Article 25, paragraph 3.

‍