Johan “Alex” Dijkhoffz.
PHILIPSBURG--“I never thought that I would have to defend myself in court for things I allegedly did ten years ago. I still can’t believe I am here,” defendant Johan “Alex” Dijkhoffz told the judge on Thursday after being granted the right to speak at the close of the four-day hearing in the Jasmine case.
The Public Prosecutor has charged Dijkhoffz with bribing and abuse of office of former Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure (VROMI), Christophe Emmanuel, in connection with the handling of building permits.
The defence of Dijkhoffz has argued that the prosecution in the so-called “Jasmine” investigation should be declared inadmissible, claiming serious procedural violations and breaches of fundamental rights during the criminal investigation.
During court proceedings, defence attorney Safira Ibrahim raised a preliminary objection, stating that a 2022 house search at Dijkhoffz’ residence in Porto Cupecoy was not properly documented in the case file in the Jasmine investigation. According to the defence, said case file lacks a judicial authorization to enter the property, as well as official reports detailing seized items and the findings of the search.
The defence contends that these omissions constitute an “irreparable procedural error” under Article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ibrahim argued that the alleged shortcomings violated Dijkhoffz’s right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of aforesaid Convention. As a result, the defence is requesting that the Public Prosecution be declared inadmissible, or alternatively that all evidence connected to the search be excluded.
The investigation
The Jasmine investigation stems from earlier probes into alleged irregularities at the Ministry of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure VROMI. The initial “Begonia” investigation, launched in 2018 following a letter from then-minister Miklos Giterson, focused on the issuance of long-lease land.
During that probe, investigators reportedly uncovered emails suggesting that former VROMI minister Christophe Emmanuel may have accepted payments in exchange for building permits. Those findings led prosecutors to open the separate Jasmine investigation in 2020, examining suspected bribery linked to construction permits and projects involving private companies.
Prosecutors allege that WhatsApp conversations between Emmanuel and Dijkhoffz indicate possible coordination regarding permit applications, including discussions about delaying or expediting approvals. Investigators also pointed to a 2017 transfer of nearly US $15,000 from a permit applicant to a company connected to Dijkhoffz, which they suspect may be linked to the alleged scheme. The defence disputes these conclusions.
Claims of excessive delay
In addition to challenging the legality of investigative steps, the defense argued that Dijkhoffz’ rights were violated by excessive delays in the case. The Jasmine investigation experienced a lengthy pause between 2020 and early 2022 due to capacity shortages, while the alleged offences
date back to 2016–2018.
According to the defence, the long time span between the alleged events, the 2022 house search, and the ongoing proceedings have undermined Dijkhoffz’ ability to recall details and properly defend himself. Ibrahim therefore requested significant sentence reduction should the court proceed with the case and impose a sentence on Dijkhoffz in the event he is found guilty by the court.
The prosecutor maintains that the investigation is lawful and that evidence gathered in earlier probes may be used in the Jasmine case.
Long-time entrepreneur
Dijkhoffz is a well-known businessman and adviser within St. Maarten’s close-knit community. Born and raised on the island, he built a broad professional network over decades of work in several sectors, due to which he accumulated more than 38 years of professional experience across these fields.
During the period outlined in the indictment — December 20, 2016 to January 15, 2018 — Dijkhoffz' company, The Management Team, had been contracted by then Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication (TEATT) Ingrid Arrindell, placing him in a role directly supporting the functioning of the cabinet.
At the time, the TEATT and VROMI ministries were both housed in the Government Administration Building on Pondfill island, with the respective cabinet offices located on the same floor.
Prosecutors accuse Dijkhoffz of co-perpetrating bribery. According to the indictment, he allegedly offered or promised benefits — including sums of money referred to in conversations as “mangos,” “grafted mangos,” or “electronic mangos” — to former VROMI Minister Emmanuel. The alleged objective was to influence decisions related to building permits, secure preferential treatment, and obtain confidential or non-public government information.
The prosecution further claims that instructions were given to accelerate, delay or complicate permit procedures.
Alleged criminal intent
In explaining the legal basis of the charges, prosecutors argued that bribery does not require proof that a gift was actually accepted or that the public official ultimately acted on it; the offer or promise itself may constitute a criminal offence. Abuse of function, they added, involves intentionally using a public position to obtain an undue advantage for oneself or others, contrary to the proper execution of official duties.
The dossier further describes searches carried out during the criminal investigation, including the seizure of a mobile phone belonging to former minister Christophe Emmanuel. Investigators recovered WhatsApp exchanges allegedly involving Emmanuel, former minister of VROMI, Chef de Cabinet Marisha Richardson, and Dijkhoffz. Prosecutors claim the messages suggest attempts to influence the timing of certain permit decisions and describe coded references to “mangos” as possible benefits linked to bribery.
Delayed building permits
Attorney Ibrahim, however, stated that Dijkhoffz’ involvement in permit matters stemmed from requests by applicants seeking updates on delayed procedures — a common complaint within the VROMI permitting process at the time. One example highlighted the application for a building permit, in which according to witness statements, the applicant had contacted multiple individuals, including government officials and the Ombudsman, after experiencing long delays.
Defence lawyers argue that meetings arranged with the minister were intended only to clarify the status of the application and were consistent with the ministry’s “Open Friday” policy, during which members of the public could raise concerns directly.
Ibrahim also pointed to testimony indicating that allegations of bribery were based largely on rumours rather than direct evidence. Witnesses acknowledged they had never personally seen payments made to the minister, nor did they personally see the minister accepting any payments. Investigators reportedly found no financial transactions directly linking the permit file to alleged benefits. Payments made to a company associated with Dijkhoffz were described by the applicant as consultancy-related and unrelated to the permit process.
Mangos and grafted mangos
Dijkhoffz’ lawyer also addressed the prosecution’s interpretation of WhatsApp messages in which the words “mangos,” “grafted mangos,” and “electronic mangos” were allegedly used as coded language for bribes. According to the defence, the term “mango” should be understood literally as a tropical fruit and not automatically as a reference to financial benefits. They argued that a mango tree stood in the common area of Porto Cupecoy, where Dijkhoffz resided at the time of the conversations, and that references to “grafted mangos” reflected a common local expression referring to a type of cultivated mango tree known for producing higher-quality fruit.
Defence counsel further maintained that no monetary value or currency was ever linked to the alleged “mangos” in the chats and that investigators did not identify any financial transactions connected to the permit file. They pointed to witness statements indicating that former minister Christophe Emmanuel was known to enjoy mangoes, arguing that the language used in the messages could not conclusively be interpreted as bribery. Based on those factors, the defence contended that there is insufficient evidence to establish that Emmanuel received any advantage in exchange for influencing permit decisions.
Seeking information
The court also examined a building permit involving Ostanes Group Ltd. WhatsApp exchanges between Emmanuel and Dijkhoffz dated June 2017 allegedly related to a disputed recommendation within the ministry, in which Emmanuel disagreed with advice from then VROMI Secretary-General that could have delayed the application. Defence lawyers argued that Dijkhoffz’ involvement arose only after the applicant sought help to determine why the request had remained unanswered for months.
According to witness statements cited by the defence, the applicant had contacted several individuals over the years in an effort to obtain updates on the application’s status and eventually asked Dijkhoffz to make inquiries because of his network of contacts. Both men reportedly stated that no payment was made to Dijkhoffz for this assistance and that his communications with Emmanuel were limited to seeking information about the progress of the file.
Attorney Ibrahim emphasized that investigators found no evidence of payments or other financial advantages linked to the building permit and argued that the use of the word “mango” in conversations again lacked any quantifiable monetary meaning. They maintained that the permit was granted only after a prolonged process, suggesting that no undue influence or acceleration of the procedure had occurred.
Undue influence
During the hearing, the defence also addressed allegations linked to a supposed “Simpson Bay Hilton project,” arguing that the evidence presented by the prosecution does not support claims of bribery or undue influence.
Prosecutors suggested that Dijkhoffz had asked for the permit process to be delayed while he pursued a business arrangement connected to a Hilton development.
However, defence attorney Safira Ibrahim argued that the case file contains no confirmed building permit application linked to such a project during the period between November 2016 and June 2017, nor proof that a “Simpson Bay Hilton project” formally existed at that time. Ibrahim further stated that the permit in question was ultimately issued later by Emmanuel’s successor, minister Giterson, and that former minister Emmanuel himself indicated he did not treat any messages from Dijkhoffz as instructions.
Request for acquittal
Statements attributed to Emmanuel in the dossier indicate that he did agree to delay any permit and had no knowledge of what ultimately happened with the application. The defence maintained that there is no evidence Emmanuel acted on Dijkhoffz' alleged request or that any financial benefit was exchanged.
Based on these arguments, the defence contends that the elements required to prove bribery or abuse of office have not been met and has asked the court to fully acquit Dijkhoffz of the charges.
