PHILIPSBURG--Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure VROMI Patrice Gumbs of the Party for Progress (PFP) on Tuesday survived a motion of no confidence in Parliament after members voted 7 against and 6 in favour, rejecting the motion by a narrow margin following an extended debate on the performance of the ministry.
The motion was submitted on April 1, 2026 by Member of Parliament (MP) Lyndon Lewis of the Nation, Opportunity and Wealth (NOW) party and was reintroduced during a continuation of a public meeting of Parliament. The discussion formed part of ongoing deliberations with the Minister of VROMI, during which MPs raised concerns about infrastructure, permitting processes, environmental management and economic development.
Parliament Chair Sarah Wescot-Williams read the motion into the record during the meeting. It set out several allegations regarding the functioning of the Ministry of VROMI, including claims of delays in building permit approvals, lack of structured infrastructure planning, and insufficient policy implementation.
The motion stated that the minister had “failed to establish clear and effective policy frameworks and take the necessary action to support economic activity,” particularly in relation to government revenue generation.
It also stated that the minister had “failed to implement a clear, efficient and timely mechanism for the processing and approval of building permits,” which, according to the motion, has contributed to delays in development activity.
On infrastructure, the motion argued that there was an absence of a clear action plan for drainage systems and road rehabilitation. It stated that despite references to ongoing multi-year studies, there were “no defined project timelines, no transparency regarding deliverables and no indication of when infrastructure works will commence or be completed.”
The motion further raised concerns about deteriorating road conditions, abandoned vehicles on public roads, and what it described as negative impacts on safety and the country’s image.
It also stated that the minister had shown a lack of strategic direction in addressing landfill management, describing the dump as continuing to present environmental, public health, and aesthetic concerns.
Further criticisms included claims that the ministry had not implemented sufficient initiatives to attract foreign investment or support economic expansion.
The motion concluded that Minister Gumbs had failed to adequately lead the Ministry of VROMI and stated that he no longer enjoyed the confidence of Parliament. It further resolved that, should the motion be adopted, the minister would be required to place his position at the disposal of the Governor in accordance with Article 33(2) of the Constitution.
Minister declines
detailed response
When invited to respond, Minister Gumbs did not address the motion in detail. He stated: “No thanks, Madam Chair. I think I’ve said quite a lot. I just want everybody to remember that change is rough. Change is tough. We all got to be a part of change. If you want a better St. Maarten.”
Following this, MPs proceeded with their motivations before the vote.
MP Lyndon Lewis, who tabled the motion, defended its contents and said he still stood by its conclusions. “I stand by it nearly two months later,” Lewis said. “The motion was very clear and I still stand by it.”
He said he was not expecting immediate results from the minister but argued that the public was experiencing ongoing difficulties. “I don’t expect you as Minister to get everything done at once or overnight,” Lewis said. “But under the leadership of Minister Patrice Gumbs, the people are suffering.”
Lewis added that issues related to infrastructure and development were affecting the broader population.
National Alliance (NA) MP Darryl York, who supported the motion, explained that his assessment was based on a longer period of observation. “Madam Chair, the Minister spoke about change and believing in change,” MP Darryl York said. “But after two years, Madam Chair, even if change is not fully completed, one should already be seeing results.”
York stated that his decision was not based on recent developments. “My vote today is not based on the last six weeks,” he said. “It is based on the better half of two years.”
York stressed that he was not expecting perfection from the minister. “No one has to be perfect,” he said. “I am not asking for the Minister to be perfect.”
He added that his main concern was consistency in governance and execution. “All I’m asking for is consistency,” York said. “And I have not received or noticed anything as it pertains to consistency.”
Democratic Party (DP) MP Viren Kotai, who voted against the motion, said he expected improvements from the minister going forward. “Today I will be voting against this motion,” Kotai said. “But what I’m looking for is some contrition. It’s time to get the ball rolling.”
He added that his position could change depending on future developments, stating, “If things remain the same, my position would be different in the future.”
Public complaints
MP Ardwell Irion, representing NA, referred to complaints received from the public and said many of the issues raised in Parliament were reflected in constituent feedback. “These are not personal,” Irion said. “These are from the people of St. Maarten.”
He said residents had experienced difficulty contacting the ministry and receiving responses. “I’ve gotten hundreds of emails,” Irion said. “People cannot get in contact with the minister. They cannot get in contact with the VROMI Ministry.”
He added that while he had observed some improvements in recent weeks, earlier performance had been insufficient.
United Resilient St. Maarten Movement (URSM) MP Sjamira Roseburg also addressed communication concerns. “We want to see change now,” Roseburg said. “I agree there must be contrition.”
She added that recent improvements in communication were noted but needed to continue consistently. “I have seen the change in communication,” she said. “But it must continue on this path.”
MP Francisco Lacroes of the United People’s (UP) party, who co-signed the motion against VROMI Minister Gumbs, said the situation in the country remained a concern and criticised the tone of political exchanges. “Watching what is happening in St. Maarten is one thing,” Lacroes said. “Watching the replies from government is a different thing.”
He said his role as an MP was to perform oversight duties and expressed concern about public dissatisfaction.
Debating urgency
MP Omar Ottley, leader of the UP Party, speaking in favour of the motion, said public patience was limited. “The people of St. Maarten may not and do not have such patience,” Ottley said.
He also remarked that the minister’s actions and responses had shifted over time and that he was voting for the motion based on that assessment.
MP Egbert Doran, voting in favour of the motion, said government performance needed to be measured by outcomes. “The people deserve service,” Doran said. “At the end of the day, opposition or coalition, it does not matter.”
He said his decision was based on past performance and recent developments.
Reflecting on his time in opposition, MP Raeyhon Peterson of the PFP referenced earlier proceedings involving the Ministry of VROMI. “When I was in opposition, I remember a motion of disapproval that passed almost unanimously because the people had concerns,” he said.
“We gave the then Minister [Doran, Ed.] a chance to fix it, because that is how I have always believed things should be done,” he continued. “Accountability first – don’t just let him run, make him fix it.”
Peterson further referred to subsequent developments following that motion. “And then, after that, the Ombudsman came out with a systemic report showing the issues in black and white,” he said.
He also made reference to parliamentary proceedings at the time, stating that Parliament saw the return of an MP who was sick for seven months [MP William Marlin of the NA, Ed.] only for a vote against the Motion of Disapproval to help save Minister Doran.
Peterson said he did not understand the consistency of current criticism in light of past practice. “So, I don’t understand where all of these grievances are coming from now,” he said. “If it’s good for the goose, it should be good for the gander.”
Returning to the motion under debate, Peterson said the minister should be given room to implement changes. “We’ve been here before,” he said. “VROMI is not rocket science. It is hard work – a lot of hard work.”
He stated that he would not support the motion. “I am not going to vote for this motion because I read it, and I believe no real chance has been given to fix the issues raised,” he said.
However, he emphasised that oversight would continue. “I am here to pay attention,” Peterson added. “And I encourage my colleagues to continue giving constructive criticism, as I have done from opposition until now.”
Unresolved matters
“Minister Gumbs,” Parliament Chair Sarah Wescot-Williams said while motivating her vote against the motion, “I want to refer you to matters that go back even before your term, to the many writings you have received from me in relation to the Ministry of VROMI, particularly on beach policies.”
She noted that the issue had been raised repeatedly in Parliament. “Parliament is full of writings on this matter from me, and to a lesser degree others,” she said.
Wescot-Williams also referenced the ban on plastic bags, describing it as legislation that was passed unanimously by Parliament. “Up to today, and as recent as a couple of weeks ago, I could not, upon asking, get a clear answer on this matter, Minister,” she said.
Turning to zoning policy, she stated that similar concerns had remained unresolved over time. “On the matter of zoning, the same thing holds true,” she said, adding that she had repeatedly been informed that zoning plans would be implemented in phases or through designated areas, following consultations with communities.
However, she noted inconsistencies in the approach. “Only then, after consultations take place, we hear that somebody in their wisdom decided that we are going to zone the whole island,” she said.
As a result, she said, key planning instruments had remained unresolved. “So I and others sat and waited. Today we do not have one approved zoning plan for this country,” she stated.
Wescot-Williams further referenced the national nature policy plan, noting that it had been scheduled for parliamentary consideration but had not received the expected attention. “Yesterday we were supposed to approve it,” she said, referring to the Nature Policy Plan 2021–2025, and a subsequent draft covering 2026–2030.
She said that key policy areas continued to be repeated across planning documents without sufficient implementation. “In that one, like in previous ones, things such as hillside policy, tree policy, beach policy and more policies are mentioned,” she said.
The Chair stressed that her intervention was not intended as a warning, but as a call for follow-through. “Minister, I am not putting anybody on notice. I am not asking you for much more than your attention, and for any budgetary consequences to be considered in relation to the matters in the Nature Policy Plan for St. Maarten,” she said.
She concluded by referencing a recent exchange with the minister on enforcement measures. “Just a couple of days ago, I asked you how we can control these matters, and you mentioned environmental inspectors being approved. I expect to see that happen, as per your statement, Minister,” she said.
Narrow rejection
Following the debate, Parliament proceeded to a roll-call vote. Seven MPs voted against the motion and six voted in favour, resulting in its rejection.
Parliament Chair Sarah Wescot-Williams confirmed the outcome and closed the agenda point following the vote.
