Brug on the Brink? party asked him to resign, he declined

GREAT BAY--A deepening internal conflict within the Unified Resilient St. Maarten Movement has spilled into full public view through two letters now in circulation, one from party president Brenda Brooks demanding the immediate resignation of VSA Minister Richinel Brug, and the other a lengthy written response from Brug rejecting the call and accusing the party leadership of hypocrisy, selective outrage, and a coordinated effort to force him out.

In her March 26, 2026 letter, Brooks told Brug that URSM had withdrawn its support, no longer recognized him as a member of the party, and had lost all confidence in his ability to serve, citing concerns about governance, collective responsibility, alleged conflicts of interest, and what she described as a breakdown in the relationship between the minister and the party leadership. Four days later, on March 30, Brug answered in a 12-page response, flatly refusing to resign and disputing the allegations point by point, while also raising his own claims about conduct within the party, the Prime Minister’s office, and the handling of key decisions within government.

For the sake of transparency and accuracy, we republish the URSM letter as well as Minister Brug's response here verbatim.

‍

Honorable R. Burg

Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor (VSA)

Subject: Request for Immediate Resignation

Philipsburg, March 26, 2026

Dear Minister Burg,

The Unified Resilient St. Maarten Movement (URSM), under my leadership as President, writes to you with deep concern regarding your continued tenure as Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor.

After careful consideration, the party has taken the decision to formally withdraw its support for your position within both the party and the Government. As of this correspondence, the URSM no longer recognizes you as a member of the party, and we have lost all confidence in your ability to effectively serve in your ministerial capacity.

This decision has not been taken lightly. It is grounded in a pattern of conduct that has raised serious concerns about governance, cohesion, and respect for the principles of collective responsibility. In particular, it is deeply troubling that unresolved issues surrounding conflicting roles within your cabinet, specifically as they relate to the position and function of your Chief of Staff, have continued to undermine the integrity and proper functioning of your ministry.

Additionally, your repeated public posture, marked by statements and actions that contradict and, at times, directly challenge the policies and authority of the Honorable Prime Minister and Pary Leaders Dr. Luc Mercelina, has further eroded trust and confidence. The continued doubling down on such positions in the media and other public forums reflects a disregard for the standards of unity and disciplined governance expected within the Council of Ministers and from the URSM Ministers.

Since the beginning of last year (2025), the Governing Board has received multiple signals regarding, inter alia, potential conflicts of interest between your Cabinet and the company of the husband of your Chief of Staff. These matters were addressed with you in several meetings, during which you were expressly warned of the implications.

The record reflects that we discussed with you a contract entered into with CZAR Management and Consulting B.V., which you confirmed had been concluded. Upon review of the contract and the underlying documentation it is evident that the contract was concluded upon the advice of your Chief of Staff for an amount of XCG 48,510 for a period of 6 weeks. During one of those meetings held last year, the tailored-made nature of the tender for the MHF Technical Expert was also discussed, as it bore the clear semblance of being structured for the husband of your Chief of Staff. You confirmed at that time that you had entered into an agreement and that the individual had the right to participate in the new tender, further indicating that if he were successful, he could not retain both contracts.

At that time, the Governing Board was not privy to the contract period of the agreement signed on February 4, 2025, which was for a duration of six (6) weeks for the stated amount of XCG 48,510. The tender for the MHF Technical Expert, however, ran until March 6, 2026, meaning that by the time of selection of the tender, the initial contract would have already expired.

Despite having been provided with written communication on April 16, 2025, including correspondence from former Prime Minister Ms. Leona Marlin informing that civil servants are not permitted to conduct business with Government, directly or indirectly through the company of their spouses, and requesting the termination of the contract with CZAR Management and Consulting B.V., you nevertheless continued to engage in a business relationship with the company. It has further become apparent that payments made to the company exceed XCG 83,000, whereas the signed agreement reflected an amount of XCG 48,510.

Based on documentation made available, Legal Affairs rendered negative advice against the awarding of the tender to CZAR Management and Consulting B.V. on similar grounds previously raised by this Board. Notwithstanding these warnings, you failed to act accordingly and repeatedly maintained that you would “check with your legal,” without taking corrective measures.

Further concerns arise from your deviation from the advice of the Supervisory Board of SZV to appoint the duty selected candidate. Instead, an alternative appointment was made as Adjunct Director, followed by the publication of a similar tender which was ultimately awarded to the same related company.

This sequence of events occurred after it had been made clear that the tender for the Technical Expert of the MHF Construction project could not be awarded via your Ministry due to the evident conflict of interest and the potential violation of Article 54 of the Landsverordening Materieel Ambtenarenrecht (LMA). The semblance was then created that the selected candidate for Director was effectively blocked to allow for the husband of one of your Ministry’s department heads to be appointed as Adjunct Director to SZV, notwithstanding the fact that he had not achieved the highest score in the selection process. This, in effect, enabled the tender to be carried out through SZV for the same MHF role and subsequently awarded to the very same company against which negative advice had previously been issued.

It is also remarkable that you are now inviting the Integrity Chamber to review your Ministry, whereas documentation available clearly reflects your signature on the agreement with CZAR Management and Consulting B.V., the very agreement you declined to provide to the Honorable Prime Minister, instead referring him to DIV, even after repeated requests.

Moreover, it is evident that shortly after assuming office, you authorized your politically appointed Chief of Staff to act on your behalf, a matter which was discussed with you and identified as not legally permissible given the nature of the function.

At this stage, it is evident that there has been a continued pattern of conduct, including your repeated undermining of the Honorable Prime Minister and your increasing disconnect from the Party. The Governing Board has made consistent efforts to address these matters and to avoid integrity breaches; however, these warnings have been disregarded.

You were expressly warned about the implications of Article 54 of the Landsverordening Materieel Ambtenarenrecht (LMA), both last year and again in January of this year. At no point did the Board fail to act or attempt to ensure adherence to the standards of integrity that you yourself advocated during the campaign.

Given the current circumstances, it is clear that your continued conduct places not only yourself and your Chief of Staff in a precarious position, but also exposes the Party, who proposed you as Minister, to significant reputational and institutional harm. We cannot turn a blind eye to these developments.

Accordingly, and in light of the irreparable breakdown in the relationship, including the position expressed within the coalition that this relationship is beyond repair, the Party has no alternative but to part ways.

It is therefore expected that this separation will be reflected by your voluntary resignation from both the Party and the Council of Ministers. Should you maintain your position and refuse to resign, the Party will have no alternative but to pursue any and all available legal and constitutional measures to ensure that you vacate your position as Minister.

Leadership within URSM is anchored in accountability, integrity, and a unified commitment to serving the people of Sint Maarten. Regrettably, your actions demonstrate a clear departure from these principles, compromising both the credibility of the Government and the stability required to effectively govern.

In the best interest of the country, the dignity of the office you hold, and the preservation of good governance, I hereby call on you to tender your immediate resignation as Minister of VSA.

This request is made with the utmost seriousness and urgency.

I trust that you will act in the best interest of the people of Sint Maarten.

Respectfully,

Brenda Brooks

President

Unified Resilient St. Maarten Movement (URSM)

‍

Minister Brug Response

Board of the URSM

Attn. Ms. Brenda Brooks

President

Philipsburg

Sint Maarten

Ref: Response to letter dated March 26, 2026, requesting my immediate resignation from the URSM Party and from the position of Minister of Public Health, Social Development & Labor (VSA)

Monday, March 30, 2026

Dear Ms. Brooks,

I have taken notice of the letter addressed to my person dated March 26, 2026, in your capacity as President of the board of the URSM with the subject: “Request for Immediate Resignation”.

Having thoroughly reviewed the letter, I find this decision to be based on assumptions, unfounded allegations, and a blatant disregard for the truth.

I also find it alarming that while the letter places significant emphasis on the Party’s integrity, it makes repeated reference to confidential internal information and documentation. Such information could only have been obtained through leaks, among others, by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Party. This raises a serious contradiction: the very integrity principles the Party purports to champion are being undermined by the Board itself, which appears to have encouraged and condoned the leaking of confidential information rather than requesting the relevant documentation through established legal procedures, namely, a formal request pursuant to Article 3 of the Landsverordening Openbaarheid van Bestuur.

If I am incorrect in this assertion, I welcome the Board to present me with all formal requests for information and documentation directed to the Competent Authorities, along with the formal responses thereto.

Additionally, it cannot go unaddressed the lack of integrity of your person reflected in the actions you have spearheaded since the outset of my appointment, including the placement of two (2) individuals within my Cabinet with the explicit instruction to gather information against me in order to remove me from office within three (3) months. You are also a key architect of the campaign against my Chief of Staff, as was evidenced during the court hearing in which neither the Department of PNO nor the Landsadvocaat, Attorney Gibson, were able to answer the court’s questions without reading from notes passed to them by you during the proceedings.

This is consistent with the pattern I have previously highlighted in past correspondence and in meetings: the standards this Party claims to uphold are applied selectively and not equally to all.

Before responding to your requests, I take this opportunity to formally address the incorrect assertions made in your correspondence, which form the basis of your request, and to once again highlight the hypocrisy and double standards being applied by the Party.

Pattern of Conduct, Public Posture, and Conflicting Roles

You state that the Board’s decision is grounded in a pattern of conduct raising serious concerns about governance, cohesion, and respect for the principles of collective responsibility, and that conflicting roles within my Cabinet have continued to undermine the integrity and proper functioning of my Ministry. You further assert that my repeated public posture, marked by statements directly challenging the policies and authority of the Prime Minister, has contributed to these concerns.

I wish to address each of these assertions in turn.

Collective Responsibility

I have not violated any principle of collective responsibility. That principle requires Ministers to publicly respect policy decisions taken by the Council of Ministers as a collective body. The one and only public statement I made concerned the unlawful and unsubstantiated measures taken against my Chief of Staff in January; measures taken unilaterally by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Party. This does not constitute a violation of collective responsibility, as the decision in question was not collective in nature. It was a unilateral reaction by the Prime Minister, and part of a broader plan set in motion from the moment I requested to become Minister of VSA.

Following the second round of measures, surrounding which I understand ambiguity exists within the Council of Ministers as to whether a formal decision was actually taken as the basis for the Governor signing the requested documentation, I remained silent. My only recent public statement acknowledged the allegations and confirmed that I would allow the process to run its course. I also disclosed that the Integrity Chamber had been contacted for further investigation. Given the Party’s stated emphasis on integrity, I would have expected such an approach to be welcomed. Instead, it has been used against me, which is yet another example of the inconsistent standards applied by the Board.

Conflicting Roles

As previously stated, there are no conflicting roles within my Cabinet. Mr. Laville has never held any formal position within my Cabinet. As reflected in your own letter, and as was debated on the floor of Parliament at the time, Mr. Laville was contracted to conduct a specific, time-limited assessment of the Mental Health Project under the NRPB, completed within the allocated timeframe and budget of XCG 48,510. The assignment had a defined scope and short duration, and its findings were well received by the organization. Any subsequent agreements or further contracting of his services were neither initiated or directed by me or my Chief of Staff.

Contrary to your assertion, I did not decline to provide the Prime Minister with a copy of the contract. I referred him to DIV, which falls under his own Ministry, where the contract and all its annexes are properly recorded. There was no need for me to furnish documentation that was already readily available and directly accessible to the Prime Minister in Government’s digital database.

You further reference written communication sent by the Board on April 16, 2025, regarding correspondence from former Prime Minister Leona Marlin, advising that civil servants are not permitted to conduct business with Government (directly or indirectly) through a spouse’s company, and requesting termination of the contract with Czar Management. I wish to confirm that by the time that letter was received, the contract in question had already ended and the contracted services had been completed. There was therefore no basis for termination. Furthermore, no additional contracts with Czar Management were signed by me thereafter.

The assertion that I approved payments of up to XCG 83,000.00 (grossly exceeding the contract amount) or that I entered into further contractual agreements, is entirely false and without substantiation.

Notwithstanding the above, should the Board possess any evidence to the contrary, I respectfully request that it provide copies of all relevant documentation bearing my signature, obtained through official channels.

You further reference documentation, which I again assume was obtained outside of lawful channels, indicating that Legal Affairs rendered a negative advice against the awarding of the tender to Czar Management. This appears to be yet another instance of information being selectively used to advance the Board’s agenda.

For the sake of clarity, this legal advice was issued after the conclusion of the contract in question and pertained to a separate assignment being managed by a department within the Ministry. This has been explained to the Board at length on previous occasions and in written correspondence. Furthermore, I do not characterize the advice as negative. In my view, it simply provided clear guidance on how the Ministry should structure the execution of the project in a manner that would avoid any potential conflict of interest; a direction the Ministry was already committed to following.

Integrity Breaches Prime Minister and Leader of URSM

Shifting focus from the allegations directed at me to matters the Board appears to either condone or overlook, I wish to address the following:

a. Hensley Plantijn

One of the Prime Minister’s first acts upon assuming office was to bring Mr. Plantijn on board as Legal Advisor to his Cabinet, despite being fully aware that Mr. Plantijn had been dismissed by the previous administration and that legal proceedings were still ongoing. Rather than awaiting the outcome of those proceedings, the Prime Minister chose not to contest the grounds for the appeal, effectively allowing the verdict to be decided in favour of his own advisor. This was publicly cited on several platforms as a blatant conflict of interest:

“This dual role as both a beneficiary of the appeal and a legal advisor to the very government deciding on his case represents a blatant conflict of interest. By failing to recuse himself, Plantijn compromised the ethical standards expected of public officials and cast doubt on the fairness of the reinstatement process.”

The fallout extends beyond Plantijn himself. Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina’s administration is under fire for its growing reputation of opacity, preferential treatment, and failure to uphold the procedures that should govern the public service. His silence on this case, and others like it, has severely damaged his credibility. Instead of defending democratic principles, he has chosen to shield one of its own, a move that suggests political loyalty is being prioritized over public accountability.” ¹

Where was the Board’s commitment to integrity then?

b. Aarti Baran and the BIG-project

Ms. Aarti Baran, who I understand is currently employed at the Department of Legal Affairs and seconded to the Prime Minister’s Cabinet, was engaged by the Prime Minister to draft the ‘BIG’ legislation on behalf of the Prime Minister without any formal tendering process.

While the Ministry of VSA was carrying out its mandate as approved by TWO and the Council of Ministers, the Prime Minister repeatedly pressured the Ministry (including different Senior Government Officials) to handle procurement in ways that deviated from approved procedures and legal frameworks, and used his agenda-setting role to delay matters until the Ministry complied with his preferences. This pressure included a direct verbal request to SG Arnell during an urgent meeting that the PM requested to have with SG Arnell in March 2025. During this meeting the PM explicitly instructed her to (or have the department head of Public Health) alter the CoM and TWO approved Terms of Reference to ensure Ms. Baran could qualify for both the position of Legislative Draftsman and that of Project Manager. The PM went so far as to send her the adjusted text via WhatsApp, consistent with his verbal instructions during the aforementioned meeting, to make it clear how the TOR should be amended so that Ms. Baran would be able to meet the criteria to win both bids (see highlighted text in figure 1). Immediately thereafter SG Arnell reported this unethical and unlawful request.

Complying with such requests would have required the Ministry to deviate from established procurement procedures, manipulate the evaluation process, and disregard the principles of fairness, transparency, and legality that govern public tendering. When the Ministry refused to alter the TOR, the Prime Minister leaked confidential project details to Ms. Baran in order to give her an unfair advantage over other applicants. During the interview process, when asked by the selection committee how she had obtained knowledge of details contained within confidential internal documentation, she responded: “Ask your Prime Minister.”

What is interesting is that in the board’s April 2025 letter, the board accused SG Arnell of having tailored a TOR for the MHF project to benefit Mr. Laville, just a few weeks after SG Arnell had refused to follow the PM’s instruction to tailor the TOR for Ms. Baran. When that allegation did not hold water and was refuted, the board then began accusing others, including myself, of having tailored this TOR for Mr. Laville. As has been indicated previously, Mr. Laville is the only Sint Maartener hired by NRPB as a project manager to prepare and implement World Bank-funded projects on Sint Maarten. Therefore, at this current moment, in any tendering process relating to World Bank donor-funded projects on Sint Maarten, if conducted in a fair and transparent manner, Mr. Laville would continue to be the top candidate.

In addition, the Board alleges that I personally ensured the TOR for the MHF Technical Expert was tailored to benefit Mr. Laville, yet this assertion was made without any due diligence, including consulting the relevant Department Head, under whose purview the project fell. I am confident that an independent investigation, hence the need to engage the Integrity Chamber, would confirm, through the Department Head, that neither I nor my Chief of Staff had any involvement in developing that TOR. By contrast, there is clear and undisputed evidence that the Prime Minister personally interfered with an approved TWO procurement process.

Moreover, when it became evident that Ms. Baran did not qualify for either position, the Prime Minister then abused his agenda-setting authority by withholding the project from the Council of Ministers agenda for approximately two (2) months and only proceeded to schedule the project after I agreed to take the draft legislation prepared by Ms. Baran into consideration, something I only did in the interest of Sint Maarten.

c. Unlawful directives regarding licensing of Medical Professionals

I must also bring to your attention a pattern of directives issued by the Prime Minister, to multiple civil servants within the Ministry of VSA concerning the authorization of medical professionals to practice on Sint Maarten.

On multiple occasions, both verbally and in writing, directives have been issued to grant permission for individuals (including Dutch nationals) to practice as General Practitioners or Medical Specialists, despite these individuals not meeting the legally established qualification requirements. In several instances, these directives were issued after the Department of Public Health, as well as the Council of Public Health, had already provided negative advice. It should be noted that contrary to other Ministries and sectors within VSA, as it relates to Public Health, where a Minister intends to deviate from such advice, specific legal procedures must be followed. The Prime Minister demonstrated no regard for these procedures in advancing his personal agenda.

It is important to emphasize that the majority of these actions were undertaken by the Prime Minister during periods that he was NOT even functioning in the role of Acting Minister of VSA, and therefore had no legal authority to issue directives or otherwise interfere in matters that fall within my ministerial portfolio. Such involvement constitutes an inappropriate encroachment on the responsibilities of another Minister and undermines the established framework of ministerial accountability; a concern that has been repeatedly raised by other Ministers within the Council of Ministers and the coalition.

Based on available records at DIV, the Prime Minister made similar attempts with former Minister Veronica Jansen-Webster regarding a specific medical professional and was equally unsuccessful. In this case the Prime Minister waited for Minister Jansen to be on vacation and attempted to instruct the Ministry to act unlawfully. Similar directives were given to my Chief de Cabinet, the one and only day I was off island prior to the December Christmas vacation. My Chief de Cabinet then informed the PM that as Acting Minister of VSA his instruction would be adhered to. However, she would add a memo to the advice indicating that the instruction was not in accordance with the law. Upon being informed of this, the PM abandoned this course of action.

In addition, other senior civil servants, in an effort to protect both the Ministry and them from being placed in a position where they may be pressured to take decisions contrary to applicable legislation and procedures, have since July 2025 begun formally publishing certain medical decrees that fall within the scope of their respective departments. This step has been taken as a means of ensuring that all actions are properly documented and transparent should attempts be made by the Prime Minister to overturn such decisions to favor particular individuals contrary to the law.

These are not isolated incidents. Senior civil servants within the Ministry have expressed growing discomfort with the Prime Minister’s pattern of approaching them directly with requests that contravene established norms and procedures, regardless of whether he is acting in the capacity of Acting Minister of VSA. The situation has escalated to the point where at least one senior civil servant has formally requested to work from home on days when the Prime Minister is functioning as Acting Minister or when I am out of office for large parts of the day due to other engagements.

I have brought these and other serious integrity breaches to the Board’s attention on several occasions, including in my written correspondence of April 2025, and have received no response. To my knowledge, no warnings, meetings, or other communications have been directed at the Prime Minister and Leader of the Party in relation to these breaches.

I therefore ask again: are the Party’s standards applied uniformly, or selectively to those outside of the Leader and the Board? The Board is requested to clarify its position.

Public Posture

Again, I completely refute the assertion that I have consistently and publicly opposed the Prime Minister or the Party. On the contrary, it is the Board that, from the outset of my tenure, has repeatedly leaked false information in an effort to tarnish my reputation and build public support for an eventual vote of no confidence; an outcome the Board appears to have been orchestrating from the beginning.

A clear example of this is the matter concerning workers from the French side requiring work permits. Rather than first verifying whether the decision was in fact taken or communicated by me, you, as President of the Board, chose to conduct a number of Facebook Live sessions publicly condemning the move. Additionally, radio personality, Billy D, read aloud a statement from the Prime Minister distancing himself from the matter. What is particularly striking is that at no point during this episode was there any concern raised about the principles of collective responsibility, nor did you or the Prime Minister think to pause and consult with me before publicly opposing a move that, in fact, stemmed from a misunderstanding on the part of the designated representative(s) of the Airport.

Not to mention the repeated public statements made by you asserting that I am incompetent and that the Board would remove me within three (3) months of my taking office.

The Board’s intentions have been clear from day one. Unlike the Prime Minister and other Ministers, who have had the comfort of operating without such pressure, I have been compelled to treat every day as potentially my last in office, channeling that reality into a drive to deliver meaningful progress for the people of Sint Maarten.

Matters Regarding SZV

Your letter makes several assertions regarding SZV. You allege that I deviated from the advice of the Supervisory Board to appoint the “duly” selected candidate, instead facilitating the appointment of the husband of one of my Department Heads as Adjunct Director and that this was done to enable Czar Management to receive a contract under his directorship for the same MHF role for which Legal Affairs rendered a negative advice.

I will address each of these points separately.

Deviation from Selected Candidate

The documentation provided by the Supervisory Board was reviewed both internally by my Cabinet and externally by multiple designated (legal) professionals. That review revealed that the process was flawed and constructed in a manner that favored a particular candidate. My findings were properly communicated through the appropriate channels to the competent authorities and subsequently discussed with the coalition.

I wish to state emphatically that my actions in this matter were solely aimed at safeguarding the integrity of the process and ensuring that the most suitable candidate was selected for the position. Accordingly, the Board received instructions to restart the recruitment process once a complete board had been appointed, a process we are actively busy with. I wish to also remind the board that in my meeting with the Board on this matter, I had indicated that I was reviewing all possible options related to this appointment process. If it were up to me an Interim Director would have been appointed in the process while the recruitment trajectory was redone. However, legally the SZV law does not allow for such.

Appointment of Adjunct Director (Minister Jansen-Webster’s candidate)

Here again, information is being misrepresented to construct a false narrative.

Upon taking office, and in anticipation of the departure of Mr. Glen Carty, the Supervisory Board submitted several correspondences inquiring about the status of the Adjunct Director appointment. In accordance with Article 6 of the Landsverordening Uitvoeringsorgaan SZV, the Supervisory Board is responsible for putting forward candidates for both the Director and Adjunct Director positions. The Supervisory Board had already submitted Mr. Elton Felisie as their selected candidate, taking into account that he had already been functioning in that capacity for some time without a formal appointment. This selection was forwarded to the Government on August 12, 2024, prior to my tenure, during the period in which Mrs. Veronica Jansen-Webster was serving as Minister of VSA.

As confirmed in an email from Mr. Perry Wilson, then Chair of the Supervisory Board, dated February 27, 2025, Mrs. Webster had confirmed her agreement with the appointment, documentation of which is on record at DIV. However, the process was not finalized before her departure. I therefore proceeded to finalize Mr. Felisie’s appointment as Adjunct Director, in accordance with the SupervisoryBoard’s advice and with prior approval by Mrs. Jansen-Webster. Do note that the Council of Ministers approved this appointment.

And, while he is currently functioning as Acting Director, it was never the intention for him to be appointed as Director based on the recruitment process that took place. These are by law two distinct appointments that must be treated as such, and should not be conflated to support the false narrative that I seek to exert political control over SZV for personal gain. If the board has an issue with Mr. Felisie as Deputy Director of SZV, I suggest the board takes this up with Mr. Perry Wilson and MP Jansen-Webster.

Tender by SZV and Contract between Czar and SZV for the MHF Role

The Board is drawing yet again connections where none exist; connections that could have been easily clarified had the Board chosen to conduct proper due diligence rather than selectively use information to discredit my name, character, and conduct.

Following a review of SZV’s 2025 budget, several inconsistencies were identified and formally communicated to the Supervisory Board in writing. Given the critical financial situation and written concerns expressed by the CFT, including CFT’s serious concerns regarding construction costs that appeared grossly inflated and that approving such a request would be financially risky, I instructed that certain due diligence measures be carried out following Mr. Felisie’s appointment. These included, but were not limited to:

- An independent technical assessment of all construction projects under SZV;

- Legal advice on the renegotiation of the hospital loan;

- Planning for the interim financial gap, given that the Health Levy would not come into effect as originally planned;

- Acceleration of the 1B draft law;

- And a revised 2026 budget with clear cost containment measures.

Pursuant to this instruction, which is legally permissible under Article 3 of the applicable legislation, SZV independently designed and issued a Terms of Reference for the first item listed above. That TOR was not prepared, reviewed, or vetted by me, any member of my Cabinet, or the Ministry. The process was handled independently by SZV, and its duration was even extended to facilitate additional applications. The fact that Czar Management secured the bid is a direct result of that independent process and had nothing to do with my involvement or that of my Chief of Staff. It is also incorrect to suggest that this concerned the same MHF project.

A simple review of the TOR would confirm that the scope of this assignment was substantially broader and significantly different from the TOR that, in your own words, was “tailor-made” by the Ministry for Czar.

Authorizing my Chief of Staff to Act on my behalf

Your letter states that shortly after taking office, I authorized my Chief of Staff to act on my behalf, a matter that was allegedly discussed with me and identified as not legally permissible given the nature of the function.

I am surprised by this assertion. I have no recollection of granting any such authority to my Chief of Staff. At most, I would have communicated to Management that requests originating from my Chief of Staff or members of my Cabinet should be understood as coming directly from me, a practice that is standard across all Ministries. I fail to see how the Board could interpret such a communication as evidence of mal-intent or any unlawful act on my part.

I once again question through what channels the Board obtained access to internal correspondence of this nature and reiterate the necessity for an independent investigation (preferably by the Integrity Chamber) into the matters addressed herein.

Final Considerations

Having addressed each of the assertions made in your letter, a clear and troubling pattern emerges, one that I can no longer allow to go unchallenged.

It is telling that this letter, like several before it, seeks to discredit individuals who have had the courage to uphold the law and resist undue pressure. Mr. Elton Felisie is a case in point. He is the same individual who stood firm against the Prime Minister’s attempts to interfere in SZV’s affairs, including a false claim that I had approved a budget increase and authorized construction following a bidding process that raised serious questions.

Similarly, Ms. Fenna Arnell is the same official who, on multiple occasions, refused to comply with instructions to approve permits for medical practitioners who did not meet the legal requirements. Same case can be made for SG Arnell. These are not individuals acting improperly; they are individuals acting with integrity. The fact that they are referenced in your letters as “co-conspirators” in the alleged wrongdoing surrounding contracts with Czar Management speaks volumes. These are desperate attempts to tarnish reputations of hardworking Sint Maarteners.

The same pattern holds when one considers the broader picture. My Chief of Staff, the Governor, Mr. Felisie, both Ms. Arnells, Czar and I. What we share in common is that we have each, in our respective capacities, refused to bend to the Prime Minister’s will when such demands constituted illegal or unethical conduct or have identified wrongdoings of the PM. That, it appears, is the true basis for the actions being taken against us.

I also wish to state clearly that I cannot recall a single instance in which I deviated from decisions taken by my predecessor, Minister Jansen-Webster. On the contrary, I ratified her preferred candidate for SZV, maintained the same position regarding a medical advice that the Prime Minister attempted to sign unlawfully, and have followed the instruction letter regarding the MHF project, that was approved by COM to the letter, while the Prime Minister has actively sought to undermine it. If the PM and the board have issues with my actions to uphold continuity of Government, then the board should have issues with the decisions of former Minister Jansen-Webster as well.

If the Board is looking for evidence of deviation from established norms and decisions, it need look no further than the Prime Minister’s own conduct.

As for the allegation that I have undermined the Prime Minister, I reject this entirely. I have consistently sought dialogue and cooperation. I have invited URSM and other MPs to meetings to discuss possible collaboration and provide updates. I have collaborated with coalition partners, given credit where it is due including to MP Jansen-Webster, and worked constructively across party lines in the interest of Sint Maarten. What I have refused to do is act unlawfully. That is not undermining; that is governance.

If the Board wishes to discuss undermining, I would draw its attention to the WhatsApp message sent in September 2025 by you, in your capacity of the President of the Board, to the two (2) members of my Cabinet placed by the Board, in which such individuals were explicitly instructed to gather information against me for the purpose of removing me from office. The WhatsApp message which was shown to me and others in the Cabinet reminded them of their role and that up to that point they had failed to deliver such information. Of course the reason for that was that there was no “dirt” to deliver, and as such, the Board is using and manipulating all information leaked to them to create such reasons to demand my resignation. To say that I was deeply disappointed and hurt after reading this message is a gross understatement of the true feelings I felt in that moment. It confirmed all the suspicions I had regarding my party and the many conversations with individuals including members of Parliament regarding how my party felt about me and its intentions to do everything in its powers to make me fail, not realizing that if I fail the party also fails.

Moreover, the Board speaks of irreparable harm and an irreparable relationship. I disagree. Relationships can be repaired where there is mutual respect and a genuine commitment to the public interest. I have demonstrated this willingness on multiple occasions, including my expressed desire to engage in dialogue with the Laville family, who were instrumental supporters of this Party from its formation, involved in strategizing, preparing candidates, financing and advising you personally, Madam President, and the leader of the Party. It is also worth noting that

Mrs. Laville sat on the Board of the Party and was even offered a position in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet under the Mercelina-I Government, which she respectfully declined.

I also draw the Board’s attention to the fact that several staff of Brooks & Associates holds Board-appointed positions in key Government companies. I leave it to the Board to reflect on how this sits with its stated commitment to integrity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, let me be unequivocal: it is not my intention to resign as Minister or as a member of the URSM.

From the content of this letter, it should be clear that every allegation brought against me is false, unsupported by any substantiating documentation, and cannot begin to compare to the severity of the documented allegations against the Prime Minister and Leader of the Party. I therefore respectfully submit that the Board reconsider who is truly at the center of the controversy continuing to tarnish the Party’s reputation and direct its attention accordingly, both in terms of who it chooses to distance itself from and from whom it should be seeking a resignation.

I would also like to indicate that as it relates to the situation with my Chief of Staff, after the process is finalized and there is a clear outcome as to what had transpired, I will review the outcome and consider if the need exists for possible measures to be taken, as I believe in transparency and accountability.

As for me and my relationship with the Party, I remain committed to the Party, the people of Sint Maarten and believe that, with mutual respect and goodwill, a path forward remains possible with open dialogue. Furthermore, I maintain a strong and constructive working relationship with both coalition and opposition partners and will continue to act in the best interest of Sint Maarten.

Lastly, despite the Board’s public disapproval of my appointment from the outset, and its consistent efforts to find grounds for my removal from office, I have remained focused on delivering tangible results in line with the promises made during our election campaign and enshrined in our party manifesto. I further remain committed to the goals, mission, and vision of the URSM, notwithstanding the aforementioned challenges. As it relates to our Coalition partners, our Governing Program and members of the Council of Ministers, I remain committed to jointly fulfilling the promises we made to the public.

For transparency purposes, as you have already communicated your next steps, should I refuse to voluntarily resign, I am hereby sending a copy of this letter to all coalition party leaders.

Respectfully,

Richinel Brug

MAR 30 2026

‍