The flag pole – currently without the national flag – on the Bell family property on Cole Bay hill.
PHILIPSBURG--Contractor Jean Bartlett, owner of the now-defunct company Earth Movers, has strongly defended himself against accusations of bribery and corruption in the Jasmine case. Addressing the Court on Thursday, Bartlett rejected the prosecutor’s claims, insisting that his role in post-Hurricane Irma reconstruction projects was entirely legitimate and aimed at aiding St. Maarten’s recovery.
Bartlett’s defence lawyer, Safira Ibrahim, presented a detailed plea arguing that the allegations arose from a prolonged investigation, were exacerbated by extraordinary post-hurricane circumstances, and have been undermined by excessive procedural delays.
The Jasmine investigation focuses on several government projects awarded in 2017, including the Flag Pole project, Basketball Court Great Bay, and roadside barriers and railings repairs at the Keys in Sucker Garden and Prince Bernard Bridge (Bush Road). Two companies were involved, one of which was Bartlett’s Earth Movers.
Prosecutors allege that Bartlett coordinated with former Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure VROMI Christophe Emmanuel and others to structure bids in ways that avoided public tender procedures and favoured certain contractors. Bartlett is also accused of bribing Emmanuel with NAf. 23,500 in connection with the government-funded “Flag Pole” project.
The defence vehemently disputes these allegations. Ibrahim stressed that the Flag Pole project was a personal project of Emmanuel and did not need a public tender. The project was executed in the immediate aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria, when the island faced a national emergency. “The post-hurricane crisis justified expedited decision-making and deviations from standard procurement procedures to address urgent public health, safety, and infrastructure needs,” she said.
Flag Pole project
Earth Movers was a small sole proprietorship, established in 2016, operating primarily as a subcontractor in the private sector. According to the defence, the Flag Pole project generated little to no profit for Bartlett once third-party workers and materials were paid. Ibrahim highlighted that all payments were transparent and properly documented, and that Bartlett’s role was strictly operational, limited to executing the work required.
Attorney Ibrahim also raised concerns over violations of his right to a trial within a reasonable time, referencing both the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Bartlett was first formally questioned in December 2024, nearly seven years after the alleged incidents, even though a brief house search occurred in May 2023. “The extended delay has impaired Mr. Bartlett’s ability to recall events accurately and has negatively impacted both his defence and the pursuit of truth,” Ibrahim argued.
Bribery allegations
Central to the case is the allegation that Bartlett offered or gave NAf. 23,500 to Emmanuel to secure the Flag Pole project. The defence insists there is no evidence of bribery. Bartlett’s involvement, they say, was strictly limited to carrying out the project itself. Documents show that he issued invoices for the salvaging of four damaged flagpoles, and that payments were processed transparently through the ministry.
Bartlett himself emphasised that the project was designed as a public symbol of recovery: “It was like a blueprint on Christopher’s mind,” he said, referring to Emmanuel’s original vision for restoring the flagpoles. Bartlett participated to contribute to the island’s recovery, restore essential infrastructure, and support the tourism sector, which was paralysed following the hurricanes.
Government records reviewed during the investigation confirm that Bartlett had no prior access to the internal approvals for the project. The budgeting, authorization, and oversight were conducted entirely by government officials, including ministers, financial controllers, and department heads. Bartlett’s only interactions concerning the project were operational, not financial or administrative.
Telephone records submitted as evidence show only limited contact between Bartlett and Emmanuel, with no indication of discussions about project approvals or favours. Bartlett has consistently maintained that all payments were properly accounted for and
that he did not personally benefit.
The project’s payments were transparent: Bartlett issued a detailed invoice which was paid by the government of St. Maarten, and out of which workers were paid. Bartlett remained with a small amount of NAf. 600t, too small to constitute profit or enrichment. “The funds were used for the workers, as intended. I received no personal benefit,” Bartlett affirmed.
Fraud claims
Bartlett also denied involvement in alleged fraud related to the infrastructure projects awarded to Bremer Deco-Crete (Soualiga Infrastructure Company). These included public works across the island, such as the Basketball Court Great Bay, and roadside barrier repairs at Prince Bernhard Bridge at the Keys in Sucker Garden.
Bartlett maintained he had no role in drafting or submitting the quotations. Nor did he participate in any of the bids, as these projects fell outside his company’s area of expertise, being heavy equipment used for excavations and terrain levelling for infrastructural developments.
His quotations were comprehensive, listing quantities, descriptions, rates, amounts in both Netherlands Antillean guilders and U.S. dollars, his registered email, and his signature. The disputed project quotations contained neither Bartlett’s signature nor company registration number.
Investigators also examined communications between other actors allegedly linked to these projects, but Bartlett was not involved, and no evidence of collaboration or co-perpetration was found.
Transparency and legitimacy
The defence emphasised that Earth Movers was recognised by the government as a legitimate contractor. Bartlett’s work was documented and paid according to established procedures. He did not assume a false identity, misrepresent his company, or engage in deceptive tactics. Bartlett never attempted to influence Emmanuel or any other officials improperly, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Bartlett also clarified that he had no reason to pursue the disputed projects, given his company’s focus on heavy equipment and infrastructure. “I was clear from the beginning that I was not interested in this project. I never did the work,” he stated. The invoices and
payments that were made reflect genuine work performed by his company in line with its registered operations.
Legal analysis
Under St. Maarten law, co-perpetration or “medeplegen” requires a close, conscious collaboration in the commission of a crime. Attorney Ibrahim argued that Bartlett’s role in all projects was purely operational, with no intent to mislead or manipulate government officials. Bartlett’s actions do not meet the legal thresholds for bribery, fraud, or co-perpetration, she pleaded.
The extraordinary context of post-hurricane recovery further supports Bartlett’s case. Sint Maarten faced a national emergency after Hurricanes Irma and Maria, with widespread damage to infrastructure, utilities, schools, hospitals, and communications systems. The government had to make urgent decisions to restore essential services, and standard procurement procedures were temporarily adapted to meet pressing public needs. This allowed ministries, including VROMI, to directly award contracts to qualified contractors without full tender procedures.
Request for acquittal
Bartlett’s attorney maintains that Bartlett’s involvement in the Flag Pole project was legitimate, transparently managed, and carried out with proper documentation. There was no bribery, no fraudulent activity, and no misrepresentation on his part, Ibrahim stressed. “Earth Movers operated as a recognised, registered contractor, and all payments were accounted for according to proper procedure.”
