PHILIPSBURG--The refusal of the Gumbs cabinet members to tender their resignations after no longer enjoying the support of the country’s highest legislative body is a breach of St. Maarten’s constitutional legal system.

 

This was the firm statement from Democratic Party (DP) leader Member of Parliament (MP) Sarah Wescot-Williams on Sunday in reaction to statements by Prime Minister Marcel Gumbs that he and the rest of the minister would not resign.

 

Wescot-Williams said Government was “misusing a constitutional instrument,” which was “a slap in the face of Parliament and the people of St. Maarten.”

 

“Government’s first mistake was to defy the constitution and not resign following the motion of no confidence. If he [Gumbs – Ed.] fails to do so, then he is breaching the constitutional legal system [St. Maarten Constitution – Ed.].

 

“The attributed right to dissolve Parliament is not a measure to express the Government's displeasure with Parliament at whim. The argument to dissolve Parliament as expressed by the Gumbs’ cabinet is weak and erroneous. Elections will not bring stability,” she noted.

 

She said all members of Government, with the exception of one minister, had not been elected and had not even run for office, yet they were challenging the new majority coalition in the country’s highest legislative body who had been elected by the people.

 

Wescot-Williams told The Daily Herald that while she respected constitutional law expert Professor Arjen van Rijn’s position on the political situation, she “respectfully disagrees” with him.

 

She said Van Rijn’s “advice” had been given on request of Government and officially after Government had taken its stand that it would not resign. She said that contrary to Gumbs’ assertion, “there is no disagreement about the fact that the Government has the constitutional possibility to dissolve Parliament. This constitutional fact, however, does not make Parliament subordinate to Government.”

 

“The position of Parliament as the highest political body of the land remains intact. Furthermore, the legal references used by Professor van Rijn are in line with and taken from developments and the political evolution of the Netherlands.

 

“We are not even remotely close to that type of evolution and political growth. It must be noted, though, that in the political evolution of the Netherlands, the part of dissolving Parliament due to a conflict between Government and Parliament lost its importance,” Wescot-Williams said.

 

“The impetus for such dissolution nowadays is more for Parliament to have the opportunity to get [appoint – Ed.] a government it approves of. In the case of St. Maarten, the declaration by the eight Members of Parliament already establishes this support for a new Government.”

 

She reiterated that electoral reform was pivotal and that the matter of a no-confidence motion must be further regulated, as provided for in the constitution, and there was need to localise or “St. Maartenise” the country’s laws, including its constitution.

 

The Daily Herald