Alex Dijkhoffz
By Jacqueline Hooftman
PHILIPSBURG--According to the prosecutor, former Member of Parliament and leader of the United People’s (UP) party, Rolando Brison, does not recognise the seriousness of the allegations against him, which the prosecution says “strike at the core of St. Maarten’s democratic system.”
On Monday, Brison heard the prosecution demand a two-year unconditional prison sentence against him.
During the hearing of the ‘Lissabon’ case, amongst other documents, a WhatsApp conversation between Brison and his longtime friend Alex Dijkhoffz is being discussed. In the exchange, Dijkhoffz emphasised that “payback is required.”
The conversation took place on July 8, 2020. “It was during the COVID period, and my salary as a Member of Parliament had been reduced by 30 percent. I wanted to visit my girlfriend in the Netherlands but didn’t have the money for a ticket,” Brison told the judge when asked.
Longtime friends
Brison (41) and Dijkhoffz (60) have known each other for 26 years. “He gave me my first-ever job when I was sixteen,” Brison said, referring to his work at the video store located above Burger King on Bush Road. “He continued to support me, helped me as a student with groceries and other necessities. I could always count on him.”
The judge questioned Dijkhoffz about his motives. “Because he is my friend,” the defendant responded. The judge insisted that he “must have gotten something in return” and remarked that “nobody does something like that for nothing.” Dijkhoffz repeated that he simply wanted to help. The judge concluded: “I think that this was in exchange for something.”
Later, as a Member of Parliament, Brison wrote to Dijkhoffz on March 21, 2023: “Hey Bro, I need a favour. Can you give me US $100?” Dijkhoffz responded with irritation: “Nothing I ask you, you do. It is a one-way street.”
In a voice note, Dijkhoffz asked Brison if he was ever going to repay him. He told his friend that he was living beyond his means and that he was tired of lending money repeatedly.
However, the judge concluded that the “one-way street” remark indicated that Dijkhoffz expected something else in return for the US $100.
Bribe allegations
The prosecution went further, stating that this exchange demonstrates that Brison solicited payments on multiple occasions while holding a prominent political position, while the businessmen sought to leverage the relationship to gain influence over government decisions. Dijkhoffz, however, testified that the only thing he requested from Brison was to fulfil the promises made during the election campaign, whereby the ideals of the political party would be realised. The UP party had championed economic development, pledging to position St. Maarten as the Caribbean’s premier tourist destination.
“He would often become agitated,” Dijkhoffz said, “because of COVID, the island economy had come to a standstill, and we all desired much-needed relief and progress,” and he was on Brison’s case about it, he said. Brison described remarks from Dijkhoffz as a demonstration of tough love.
Economic development
Within St. Maarten’s small and tight-knit community, Dijkhoffz is known as a businessman and advisor, his attorney Safira Ibrahim told the court on Tuesday.
Born and raised on St. Maarten, Dijkhoffz is familiar with the island’s business culture. “Over the years, he has built an extensive network, and worked with the short communication lines that characterise the local community,” Ibrahim said.
On Monday, the judge noted that Brison had shared his draft legislative proposal on the Tourist Health Levy (LGT) with Dijkhoffz and questioned why the then-MP would send him “such a confidential document.” Brison replied to the judge that the proposal was not confidential and explained that it was publicly available on the website of the Parliament of St. Maarten.
“I shared the proposal with many people, including experts working at insurance companies, to receive their comments and advice,” he said. Brison did not mention that he sent this proposal and several other initiative proposals to the local media at the time, which published articles about them and also published the negative advice of the Council of Advice on the Tourist Levy proposal.
Following this negative advice, Brison decided not to pursue the proposal further. According to the prosecutor, this ended the plan by Brison and Dijkhoffz to collect the Tourist Levy via a yet-to-be-established company in the United States, a structure in which Dijkhoffz could have received a 12.5% commission on each levy. The prosecutor argued that this could have generated $5 to $7 million annually for Dijkhoffz. Neither Brison nor Dijkhoffz ever gained any benefit from the Tourist Levy initiative, but according to the prosecutor, the intent alone is relevant.
Violation of principles
The alleged charges against Brison involve bribery. Dijkhoffz is accused of offering gifts, promises, or services to Brison between June 25, 2018, and February 7, 2024. Allegedly, these included five or more return flights, hotel stays in Miami, cash payments of USD 1,000, 500, or 400, Google Play or Apple credits, meals, and payment of a lawyer’s invoice. The prosecution claims these actions were intended to influence Brison in his parliamentary duties, potentially giving Dijkhoffz or others preferential treatment or business advantages.
Dijkhoffz’s attorney, Safira Ibrahim, maintains that the Public Prosecution’s case should be declared inadmissible. “From various documents in the case file, it is clear that a search took place at Mr. Dijkhoffz’s residence at Porto Cupecoy,” Ibrahim told the Court. “This search allegedly occurred on May 11, 2022, not only at his home but also at his office on Airport Road, during which multiple data carriers were seized.
However, the Lissabon case file contains no authorisation to enter the premises, nor any formal request for such authorisation. Additionally, there is no official report acknowledging the seized property (KVI) or any report detailing the findings of the search.”
According to the defence, this constitutes an irreparable procedural defect under Article 413 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. “Combined with the timelapse – no less than four years – It is no longer possible to conclude that the trial as a whole has been conducted fairly,” Ibrahim said. “The investigative authorities have seriously violated the principles of proper legal procedure, compromising not only Mr. Dijkhoffz’s right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but also his right to a fair trial under Article 6.”
Separate investigations
The Lissabon investigation followed earlier probes by the Public Prosecution, specifically the Mitte and Begonia cases, whose findings were incorporated into Lissabon, along with information received from the TCI.
In the Mitte investigation, Dijkhoffz was arrested in May 2022. Based on the findings from seized data carriers and the information obtained from the TCI, including data from 2020, Brison was formally designated as a suspect. The allegations against him concern accepting bribes in his capacity as a public official and Member of Parliament, as well as abuse of office.
During the Lissabon investigation, the seized phones contained numerous conversations and voice messages between Brison and Dijkhoffz. According to the Public Prosecution, these communications indicate that between January 15, 2020, and May 11, 2022, Dijkhoffz paid for or provided funds to Brison on at least sixteen separate occasions.
Extraordinary circumstances
Attorney Ibrahim told the court that the prosecution’s claims fail to consider the extraordinary circumstances surrounding these events. “We must not forget the global pandemic, the urgent need for public-private collaboration, and the longstanding friendship between Mr. Brison and Mr. Dijkhoffz,” she said. “The proposed National Ordinance on Tourist Health Levy, the LGT, must be understood in this broader policy context. St. Maarten, a small island with an open economy heavily dependent on tourism, faced unprecedented challenges in 2020 and the following years.”
Ibrahim emphasised that the LGT represented a pragmatic tool. “The government sought to generate a stable revenue stream from tourism to finance essential healthcare services,” she said.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, St. Maarten, like many tourist-dependent islands, faced an urgent public health challenge. Hotels were asked to provide quarantine facilities for travellers who might have been exposed to the virus. This was part of the government’s effort to prevent the spread of COVID-19 while keeping essential tourism operations running.
The Adonis Hotel & Residences – located on Jordan Road near Cupecoy – agreed to operate as a quarantine facility. According to the defence, Dijkhoffz assisted the hotel in implementing safety, security, and operational protocols for these quarantine measures. This included guidance on logistics, guest safety, and compliance with health regulations.
Ibrahim emphasised that this was the manner in which Dijkhoffz was involved with Adonis Hotel. This was at the request of the hotel and in line with urgent public health needs, not to influence Brison or obtain any advantage in government decisions.
Abuse of power
When Dijkhoffz informed Brison that the Government of St. Maarten had not paid the Adonis Hotel for its quarantine services over the past three months, and that the hotel manager had lodged complaints, the prosecution argued that Brison had abused his power by contacting Minister of Finance Ardwell Irion.
Brison, however, told the judge, “The money was long overdue,” emphasizing that his actions were intended to prevent the imminent closure of the quarantine facility and ensure that the hotel could continue supporting the island’s pandemic response.
“It is important to note that a Member of Parliament, while holding an executive function, occupies a much smaller role compared to that of a minister,” Ibrahim said. “A parliamentarian is considered a representative and overseer, whereas a minister has executive authority and is viewed as a decision-making administrator.”
Additionally, a Member of Parliament cannot independently decide on a legislative proposal; approval requires the votes of at least seven other members, forming a majority of eight.
Brison explained his responsibilities as a parliamentarian when asked by the court. These duties include attending parliamentary sessions, improving legislation for the country, participating in debates, asking questions of ministers, and conveying the concerns of citizens to government officials. Based on these functions, a Member of Parliament does not have the authority to issue instructions or directives to a minister. As Brison stated, “That requires a parliamentary majority.”
Consequently, Brison, as a Member of Parliament, does not possess independent or unilateral authority to deliberate or make decisions within the legislature. Even after achieving a majority, subsequent actions are carried out by the relevant government officials.
Brison explained this clearly: “I do not understand how, in that context, a Member of Parliament could do or fail to do something that would constitute bribery. I do not have an executive role. I am not a minister. Everything I did was guided by the vision and the government program.”
Sources of inspiration
Brison also viewed certain individuals not only as advisors but, depending on the topic at hand, as sources of inspiration. He illustrated this with an example from 2019: “Ms. Jacobs, then PM, wanted to change the legal age from 16 to 18. She asked several foundations to contribute, as a kind of community service, so that legislative lawyers could be hired to help draft the bill. To me, this was a new, innovative way to realise legislation. The bill was drafted and passed in Parliament. I thought it was innovative and a method we could use more often to achieve legislative goals.”
Attorney Ibrahim emphasised: “Given these circumstances and the rapidly evolving political situation – particularly in response to the devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic – the WhatsApp chats between Dijkhoffz and Brison, as well as between them and other third parties, took place within this context of urgent governance, collaborative problem-solving, and innovation in parliamentary processes.”
Good talker
Dijkhoffz stated in court on Monday: “Rolando has never done anything for me. Rolando is a good talker, but he has never arranged a contract for me. I give him advice, but I’m sure he receives advice from many others as well.”
He explained that his choice of words and the way he expresses himself are inherent to his character, and he directly voiced his dissatisfaction with Brison’s actions as a Member of Parliament, as well as with the government’s conduct in general. And like Dijkhoffz emphasised: “But that is my personal opinion.”
According to his attorney, this personal viewpoint runs consistently through the chats Dijkhoffz had with Brison and others, a fact that Brison himself confirmed: “He could be critical of the issues affecting the island. I listened to many people on the island about different topics. He had a clear opinion about what was right or wrong for the island. He expressed his opinions strongly and dominantly.”
