PHILIPSBURG--The Court of First Instance on Tuesday declared the reappointment of GEBE’s Chief Operations Officer (COO) and Managing Director Romelio Maduro invalid and has declared null and void any of the acts of administration he performed on behalf of the utilities company after May 31.

 

GEBE’s Supervisory Board and Maduro squared off in the Court of First Instance in an injunction concerning his suspension, on which the Judge ruled in July.

 

GEBE wanted Maduro’s reappointment off the table and wanted Government to retract its decision. To this end, GEBE also had filed a regular court procedure, in which parties did not present additional pleadings.

 

GEBE shareholder representative Prime Minister Marcel Gumbs, in his capacity of caretaker Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure VROMI, rejected on May 29 a request of the GEBE board not to extend Maduro’s contract by two years. His contract expired on May 31.

 

Initially, GEBE had no objections to Maduro’s reappointment, but following reports that he allegedly had abused his position and had harmed the company, it called on the shareholder representative to retract the two-year reappointment.

 

GEBE suspended Maduro on June 11 and placed him on non-active duty for a two-month period as of that day.

 

Among allegations against Maduro are “unusual transactions” and financial irregularities, “neglect” and the inappropriate use of company credit cards.

 

In the injunction, the Court arrived at the conclusion that Prime Minister Gumbs, as Minister of VROMI, was entitled to make decisions as GEBE’s shareholder representative. However, the shareholder representative should have been aware of the content of a letter sent by GEBE in which he was informed that there no longer was a recommendation or “advisory vote” for Maduro’s reappointment.

 

As there is no possibility to appoint directors without a valid recommendation by the Supervisory Board, the decision to appoint Maduro was found to be in violation of GEBE’s statutes and null and void according to the civil code, the Court ruled in the preliminary judgement.