PHILIPSBURG--The Board of the Unified Resilient St. Maarten Movement (URSM) has requested the immediate resignation of Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor (VSA) Richinel Brug, citing concerns over integrity, and alleged conflicts within his Cabinet. The Minister has rejected the request, stating it is based on “assumptions, unfounded allegations, and a blatant disregard for the truth,” and has made clear he will not resign.
In its March 26, 2026 letter, the URSM Board, led by President Brenda Brooks, stated it had “lost all confidence” in Brug’s ability to serve and formally withdrew its support for both his role in government and his membership in the party. The Board pointed to a “pattern of conduct” raising concerns about governance, cohesion, and respect for collective responsibility, as well as what it described as unresolved issues involving conflicting roles within his Cabinet, particularly concerning his Chief of Staff.
The Board also cited Brug’s “repeated public posture,” which it said included statements and actions that contradicted and challenged the authority of Prime Minister and Party Leader Dr. Luc Mercelina, further eroding trust. It argued that these actions reflected “a disregard for the standards of unity and disciplined governance expected within the Council of Ministers.”
Central to the Board’s concerns were allegations of conflicts of interest involving contracts with Czar Management and Consulting B.V., a company linked to the husband of a senior official within the Ministry. According to the Board, a contract valued at Cg 48,510 for a six-week period was concluded, while payments allegedly exceeded Cg. 83,000. It further claimed that a tender for the Mental Health Foundation (MHF) Technical Expert appeared “tailor-made” and that despite warnings, including correspondence referencing restrictions on civil servants doing business with government through spouses’ companies, Brug failed to take corrective action.
The Board also referenced negative advice from Legal Affairs regarding the awarding of the tender to Czar Management and raised concerns about Brug’s decision to deviate from the Supervisory Board of Social and Health Insurances SZV’s recommended candidate for Director. It alleged that an alternative appointment as Adjunct Director enabled a sequence of events that ultimately led to a tender being awarded to the same company, creating what it described as a serious integrity concern.
Additionally, the Board stated that Brug authorised his Chief of Staff to act on his behalf, which it said was not legally permissible, and accused him of repeatedly undermining the Prime Minister. It warned that his continued conduct posed risks to the Party and government and called for his immediate resignation, stating that failure to do so would result in legal and constitutional action.
Not my intention to resign
In a detailed March 30, 2026 response, Brug rejected each of these claims and stated unequivocally: “It is not my intention to resign as Minister or as a member of the URSM.”
He argued that the Board’s conclusions were based on incorrect assertions and highlighted what he described as contradictions in its stance on integrity. Brug expressed concern that the Board’s letter referenced confidential internal information, stating that such information “could only have been obtained through leaks, among others, by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Party,” and challenged the Board to provide evidence of formal requests for documentation through legal channels.
Brug further accused the Board President of a lack of integrity, alleging that from the outset of his appointment, efforts were made to remove him from office, including the placement of two individuals within his Cabinet “with the explicit instruction to gather information against me in order to remove me from office within three months.”
Addressing the issue of collective responsibility, Brug stated he had not violated the principle, explaining that it applies to decisions taken collectively by the Council of Ministers. He noted that his only public statement concerned “the unlawful and unsubstantiated measures taken against my Chief of Staff in January,” which he said were unilateral actions by the Prime Minister and therefore did not constitute a breach.
On the matter of alleged conflicting roles, Brug maintained that “there are no conflicting roles within my Cabinet,” clarifying that Mr. [Romain] Laville was contracted solely for a specific, time-limited assignment under the NRPB with a defined scope and budget of Cg. 48,510. He said that any subsequent contracts were neither initiated nor directed by him or his Chief of Staff.
He also rejected claims that he failed to provide the Prime Minister with contract documentation, stating that he referred him to DIV, where the documents were already accessible. Allegations that payments exceeded agreed amounts or that additional contracts were signed were described as “entirely false and without substantiation.”
Regarding Legal Affairs’ advice, Brug stated it was issued after the contract had concluded and pertained to a separate assignment. He further noted that the advice provided guidance on avoiding potential conflicts of interest, which the Ministry was already committed to following.
In addressing SZV-related concerns, Brug explained that the recruitment process for Director was found to be flawed following internal and external review and was therefore restarted to safeguard integrity. He clarified that the appointment of Elton Felisie as Adjunct Director followed recommendations made prior to his tenure and had been approved by the Council of Ministers. He stressed that the roles of Director and Adjunct Director are legally distinct and should not be conflated.
Brug also rejected claims linking him to SZV’s tendering process, stating that the Terms of Reference for the relevant assignment were independently prepared and issued by SZV without involvement from him, his Cabinet, or the Ministry. He emphasised that the contract awarded to Czar Management was the result of that independent process.
On the allegation that he authorised his Chief of Staff to act on his behalf, Brug said he had “no recollection of granting any such authority,” explaining that standard practice across Ministries is for requests from Cabinet members to be treated as originating from the Minister.
In his response, Brug also raised a series of counter-allegations against the Prime Minister, describing what he characterised as integrity breaches. These included the appointment of a legal advisor despite ongoing legal proceedings, alleged interference in procurement processes related to the ‘BIG’ legislation, and attempts to influence the licensing of medical professionals who did not meet legal requirements.
He detailed instances where, according to him, directives were issued to civil servants to approve medical practitioners despite negative advice from the Department of Public Health and the Council of Public Health, and noted that such actions were sometimes taken when the Prime Minister was not serving as Acting Minister of VSA.
Brug further claimed that senior civil servants had expressed discomfort with these actions and, in some cases, took steps to ensure transparency, including formally publishing medical decrees. He stated that at least one civil servant requested to work from home during periods when the Prime Minister acted in the VSA role.
He also accused the Board of selectively applying standards and failing to address alleged breaches by the Prime Minister, despite being informed of such matters in prior correspondence. Brug questioned whether the Party’s principles were being applied uniformly.
Addressing claims about his public posture, Brug rejected assertions that he undermined the Prime Minister, instead accusing the Board of leaking false information to damage his reputation and build support for a vote of no confidence. He cited an incident involving work permits for French-side workers as an example of misinformation being publicly addressed without consultation. Brug further referenced a WhatsApp message allegedly sent by the Board President to members of his Cabinet, instructing them to gather information against him. He described this as confirmation of an orchestrated effort to remove him from office.
Despite the escalating conflict, Brug stated he remains committed to the URSM, the coalition, and the people of St Maarten. He spoke of his willingness to engage in dialogue and reiterated his commitment to transparency and accountability, including allowing the Integrity Chamber to review relevant matters.
Brug maintained that all allegations against him are “false, unsupported by any substantiating documentation,” and urged the Board to reconsider “who is truly at the center of the controversy continuing to tarnish the Party's reputation.”
The dispute highlights a deepening rift within the URSM and raises broader questions about governance and cohesion within the coalition, as both sides stand firm in their positions.
