Brison uses closing statement to defend conduct, crypto position, record in office

GREAT BAY--Former Member and Chairman of Parliament Rolando Brison used his closing statement before the Court of First Instance to defend not only his own conduct, but also what he described as the realities of political life in St. Maarten and the risks this case could pose to the island’s democratic culture.

Addressing the Court directly, Brison said the accusations against him have left him deeply concerned, not only on a personal level, but also about what the case could mean for the future relationship between elected officials and the public they serve.

“Your Honor, I asked you for a little time, a few minutes because there is something I think only I in this building can explain, that no lawyer can probably explain: what it is like to be an MP,” Brison said. “And I say this because the accusations of the OM not only worry me personally, but also get me very worried about the future of our democracy, and the future of the culture we have in St. Maarten of politicians being free among their people.”

Brison said St. Maarten’s small-scale political structure means Members of Parliament operate in a way that is fundamentally different from elected officials in larger countries such as the Netherlands. He pointed out that on St. Maarten there are no layers of representation such as municipal councils, provincial governments, mayoral structures, or an upper chamber of Parliament for citizens to approach first.

“Everyone knows and says St. Maarten is a small society, but what is never really understood is that, unlike the layers of representation that exist in the Netherlands, we have no gemeenteraad, no provincial government, no burgemeester office structure, geen Eerste Kamer, that people can lean on first,” Brison told the Court. “On our island, the public’s main access point is their only elected representatives: 15 MPs for about an island of 100,000 people on both sides.”

He said that reality places MPs in constant and direct contact with the public, whether for personal concerns, business issues, or national matters, and that he deliberately made himself even more accessible than most. Brison pointed to his years hosting a Friday radio program during which members of the public could call in, raise concerns, and obtain his direct phone number.

“This means every MP knows what we signed up for: every citizen, business person, and organization is coming directly to you with their problems or concerns all the time. And they know exactly where to find us. They show up to your home sometimes even,” he said. “I made myself even more accessible than most. I hosted a radio program every Friday throughout my career where the public could call in and raise concerns, and get my direct phone number. And outside that program, I received messages constantly, permits, licenses, government delays, emergencies, and crises.”

Brison told the Court that one of the central points he wanted to make was that access to him was never reserved for a select few. According to Brison, the same access enjoyed by co-defendants in the case was available to virtually anyone in St. Maarten.

“I say this to make one thing clear: everyone in St. Maarten had privileged access to me,” he said. “There is nothing the fellow defendants would ask me to look into that every single person in our country couldn’t. And there is no privilege Alex, Robbie or Sunny could have that not a single other person in St. Maarten could have.”

He also rejected any suggestion that he used improper pressure on ministers or civil servants, saying no one had testified that they felt pressured by him and emphasizing that such conduct was not his style.

“And I never had to pressure a minister on anyone’s behalf, seeing we have not had a single civil servant or minister questioned or come forward to say they felt pressured by me, because as I told Alex, and I quote, ‘that’s not my style,’” Brison said.

Turning to his record as a legislator, Brison cited a 2018 initiative law he introduced to sell UTS shares in order to fund, among other things, law enforcement and police support. He argued that the legislation reflected a broader commitment to strengthening institutions and public safety, not personal relationships or private interests.

“In 2018, I brought my first initiative law to sell the shares of UTS in order to pay the police department, among others, funds toward law enforcement,” he said. “If the OM would read the messages I had with police back then, one would wonder if I did that for each individual police officer, maybe because some were friends. But for me, not just was it to strengthen justice in our country for the safety and security of the country, as the police were, rightfully so, threatening to strike.”

Brison said that first initiative law became the template for other legislative efforts he pursued in Parliament, including banking reform and his intentions regarding cryptocurrency regulation. He argued that the case itself demonstrates why stronger crypto legislation is needed on St. Maarten.

“This first law has been the template for every other law I ever did after, including the Banking law that is so crucial for our people and to my intentions with the crypto legislation,” Brison said. “Ironically, listening to both the OM and the defendants, I shake my head and think: you know what would solve this? The very crypto regulation, the very kind of legislation I was trying to promote, registering wallets, taxing crypto activity, and regulating crypto trades, would make criminal investigations easier, not harder.”

Brison told the Court that if digital wallets were registered, crypto trades regulated, and crypto activity taxed, then both prosecutors and defense attorneys would have clearer and more reliable systems to examine, rather than being left to rely on assumptions.

“If wallets were registered, if crypto was taxed, and if there were rules around trading, then both the OM and the defense would have clear, verifiable structures to rely on instead of speculation,” he said. “It still hurts me as a citizen now of this country that we still have not regulated this, and still do not collect taxes from the millions that is passing through our country.”

In one of the most pointed parts of his statement, Brison held up the phone he said was used for all of his crypto transactions and argued that investigators could have independently checked the blockchain to verify his explanation from the beginning.

“Furthermore, Your Honor, this phone I have in my hand was the phone on which all crypto transactions took place. They were on the phone,” Brison said. “So I could never understand why they would not believe what I stated from the start: I trade crypto. They could have checked for themselves, but simply refused to check the blockchain and see that all transactions to Robbie and Sunny were verifiable.”

Brison closed by expressing pride in his work for St. Maarten, while also lamenting that his political career was cut short following his arrest. He said, however, that he remains confident the Court will weigh not only the prosecution’s narrative, but also his own account of the facts.

“I’m proud of the work that I did in St. Maarten, and while I do regret that this was cut short primarily due to my arrest, I have my trust in the justice system to ensure that not just their story, but my truth is seriously considered,” Brison said.

The case now awaits judgment by the Court.

‍