Government still silent as questions linger over Minister Plenipotentiary audit

GREAT BAY--The Government of St. Maarten has remained publicly silent since the General Audit Chamber released a report identifying longstanding accountability weaknesses in the governance and financial management of the Cabinet of the Minister Plenipotentiary in The Hague, despite questions submitted by The People’s Tribune seeking Government’s response to the findings.

The Audit Chamber published its report on September 25, raising questions about the legal and financial framework governing approximately XCG 1.9 million in public funds allocated annually for the Cabinet’s operations. As of publication, The People’s Tribune had received no response from Government to its questions concerning the findings, the recommendations made by the Audit Chamber, or what steps Government intends to take to address the accountability gaps identified.

The absence of a response leaves several questions unresolved, particularly because the Audit Chamber placed responsibility on Government to decide how the structure surrounding the Cabinet and Stichting Kabinet St. Maarten should operate going forward.

At the center of the audit is the manner in which money approved by Parliament moves from the national budget into the operation of the Cabinet in the Netherlands.

The Cabinet’s annual allocation falls under the Ministry of General Affairs. Once approved, however, funds are transferred in lump sums to Stichting Kabinet St. Maarten, a private-law foundation established in the Netherlands. The Foundation employs Cabinet personnel and administers public money used for Cabinet operations.

The Audit Chamber found that although financial reporting and internal controls exist, Government has never established a comprehensive formal framework clearly defining who owns the public money as it moves between Government, the Foundation and the Cabinet’s bank account, which financial rules apply at each stage and who ultimately carries responsibility for oversight and accountability.

The issue is not new. Records examined by the Audit Chamber showed that Government approved an initial transfer of XCG 500,000 to the Foundation in 2011 and indicated at the time that conditions were to be established governing accounting and reporting. The Audit Chamber said it could not establish that this ever resulted in a formal accountability framework.

One of the clearest examples identified in the audit involved €533,922 in Government funds intended for Cabinet operations that remained with the Foundation at the end of 2024.

The Cabinet’s financial statements recorded the amount as a receivable from the Foundation, effectively treating the Cabinet and Foundation as separate parties. However, the Cabinet itself does not possess separate legal personality, leaving uncertainty about who legally held the claim to those funds.

The auditors also found that separate financial statements for the Foundation were unavailable, despite its Articles of Incorporation requiring an annual balance sheet and statement of income and expenses.

Questions were also raised over who has formal authority to financially bind the Country.

The Audit Chamber could not confirm that either the Minister Plenipotentiary or Cabinet Director was formally authorized under the applicable mandate framework to enter into obligations on behalf of St. Maarten. Neither appeared in the mandate register reviewed by the auditors.

The report noted that having money included in an approved national budget does not automatically provide the legal authority to commit the Country financially.

The auditors also examined transactions between 2021 and 2025 against procedures contained in the Cabinet’s own financial manual. While the sampled invoices all contained approval stamps, none had purchase orders attached, and the documentation did not provide a complete trail demonstrating that every required control step had been followed.

The Audit Chamber therefore said it could not verify from the supporting documents whether all procedures required under the Cabinet’s own financial rules had been completed.

Concerns were also identified over the concentration of financial responsibilities. In practice, the Cabinet Director could enter into financial obligations, approve payments and manage petty cash. The Audit Chamber acknowledged that the Cabinet’s relatively small size makes complete separation of duties difficult, but recommended stronger controls and independent review when responsibilities cannot be separated.

The report also drew attention to recurring benefits and expenses attached to the Minister Plenipotentiary and Deputy Minister Plenipotentiary, some of which continue to operate under a Council of Ministers decision dating back to 2012.

Telephone and internet expenses, as well as gas, water and electricity costs, were among recurring expenses for which the Audit Chamber said no current financial limits had been established.

Vehicle costs also drew scrutiny. The Cabinet maintained three vehicles in 2024 at a total cost of €91,195, approximately XCG 180,000. The Cabinet subsequently reassessed its transportation needs, selling one vehicle and scheduling another for sale in 2026.

The Audit Chamber ultimately presented Government with three broad options: formally regulate the existing arrangement between Government, the Cabinet and Foundation; discontinue the Foundation-based arrangement and bring the operation directly within Government; or establish a formal legal framework governing the Cabinet.

It did not recommend one option over another. What it did make clear is that Government must resolve the existing uncertainties surrounding ownership of public funds, spending authority, reporting responsibilities and accountability to Parliament.

The report also did not make a finding of fraud, theft or misappropriation. Audited financial statements are prepared, internal procedures exist and the sampled invoices contained payment approvals. The central concern raised by the Audit Chamber is the legal and accountability framework within which those controls operate.

The Audit Chamber has indicated that it intends to follow implementation of its recommendations.

‍