Parliament’s Central Committee is going to discuss the ruling with which the Constitutional Court revoked the draft National Ordinance to establish an Integrity Chamber passed by the majority (see related story). Almost a year has passed since, but the saying “better late than never” would seem to apply in this case.
The matter is certainly timely, after the Dutch Government recently announced imposing its own version of the Chamber via a General Measure of Kingdom Governance. That decision was already submitted to the Council of State for its required advice and St. Maarten has filed a so-called Crown Appeal mentioned in the Justice protocol of which the Chamber was part.
The Government in Philipsburg argues that it could do little else but respect the ruling, while terms mentioned in the protocol had expired too. However, the Netherlands believes no real effort was made to repair the legislation and doesn’t want to wait any longer.
The latter is no wonder, with Prime Minister William Marlin having repeatedly stated he sees no need for the Chamber and other measures to promote integrity are being taken, also by existing law enforcement authorities. His party National Alliance (NA) voted against the law proposal at the time as well.
Still, the objections mentioned by the Court in its review at the request of the Ombudsman include infringing on the Constitution and international law regarding the principles of a fair trial and right to privacy. These are not issues that can easily be “swept under the rug” or remedied, because they touch the very essence of what the intended Chamber to fight corruption is all about.
It nevertheless behoves the local elected representatives to seriously look into possible changes to both comply with the ruling and satisfy The Hague. Such a scenario, based on renewed cooperation rather than confrontation, would in the end probably be best for all parties concerned.
