Documents show previous government did advance CBCS chair nomination

GREAT BAY—Documents shared on Thursday by MP Ardwell Irion indicate that the previous National Alliance–led government did move forward on a nomination for Chairperson of the Supervisory Board of the Centrale Bank van Curaçao en Sint Maarten (CBCS), in line with the procedure set out in Article 25 of the CBCS Charter, and contrary to public statements by the Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and "conditional" nominee Jairo Bloem, that it had not.

Official documents show that On December 30, 2021, the CBCS Supervisory Board issued a written recommendation naming Mr. Dennis Leroy Richardson for the chairmanship. On March 4, 2022, St. Maarten’s then–Minister of Finance, Ardwell Irion, formally informed Curaçao’s Minister of Finance, Javier Silvania, that St. Maarten agreed with the Board’s recommendation for Mr. Richardson. “I agree with the recommendation of the Supervisory Board … for Mr. Dennis Leroy Richardson to become the new Chairperson of the Supervisory Board of the CBCS,” Irion wrote.

On March 29, 2022, the Council of Ministers (COM) of St. Maarten approved proceeding on that basis and instructed that the required integrity screening be initiated. This is where the process slowed: the legal framework for screening so-called ‘confidential positions’ was not yet in place. Both Curacao and St. Maarten needed to amend its legislation before screenings could lawfully proceed.

The Council of Advice confirmed that screening should occur only once the legal basis had been adjusted. It is understood that these amendments were completed for St. Maarten at the end of 2023/beginning 2024, before the previous government left office but right on the heels of the January 2024 elections after which the government entered a "demmissionaire" status.

Irion has previously stated that the screening impasse emerged in 2021 when temporary members were nominated and the national security service (VDSM) declined to conduct screenings absent a clear legal basis. He maintains that during his tenure the legal framework was addressed to require screening of CBCS board members and that lawful appointments could then resume. He has also emphasized that the name advanced to St. Maarten came via a five-sixths recommendation of the Supervisory Board and that, under the Charter, ministers do not generate candidates independently of a Board recommendation.

Irion further contends that national decrees finalizing temporary appointments were not completed by the current administration, which, in his view, contributed to the continuing vacancy at the chair and to public claims that no prior nomination had been advanced. The documents described above reflect that a nomination trajectory was begun, subject to screening and the joint process with Curaçao required by Article 25.

𝘌𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘰𝘳'𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦: 𝘈𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘬𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦:

“𝐉𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭” 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: Article 25 provides that appointment and removal of the chair occur by joint national decree of both countries, following a joint nomination by their finance ministers, based on a Supervisory Board recommendation. St. Maarten’s 2022 letter recorded agreement with the Board’s recommended candidate and sought to move the joint process forward with Curaçao; it did not purport to appoint unilaterally.

𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: The Charter links the ministers’ joint nomination to a recommendation by a five-sixths majority of the Board. Whether that recommendation is “binding” in a strict legal sense has been debated publicly; however, the record here shows the prior government proceeded on the basis of an actual Board recommendation rather than bypassing it.

𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞-𝐬𝐢𝐱𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 / “𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐲” 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬: Debate has also focused on how the five-sixths threshold operates when seats are vacant and on the status of “temporary” members appointed by the Joint Court pending national decrees. The Joint Court’s 2021 intervention enabled continuity of supervision while urging the finance ministers to proceed expeditiously with nominations and appointments. That ruling did not eliminate the Charter’s sequencing (recommendation → joint nomination → joint decree), nor did it convert temporary appointments into permanence; it underscored the need for governments to complete the formal process.

Taken together, the correspondence and decisions show that a prior nomination process, anchored in a Supervisory Board recommendation, ministerial correspondence, and a COM mandate to start screening, was underway. That documentary trail differs from recent public statements suggesting no nomination had been advanced by the former administration. Under Article 25, any appointment still requires joint nomination by the two finance ministers and a joint national decree signed by both countries’ Governors.

‍