Governor Baly defends Constitutional role in response to Council of Ministers advisory

GREAT BAY--Governor of St. Maarten His Excellency Ajamu Baly has formally responded to an advisory submitted by the Council of Ministers concerning his constitutional role and the limits of the Governor’s authority, firmly rejecting suggestions that he acted outside the boundaries of ministerial responsibility or in conflict with the country’s constitutional order.

In a letter dated March 27, 2026, addressed to the Council of Ministers Governor Baly said he had received, on March 26, an extensive advisory from the chair of the Council of Ministers (the Prime Minister) regarding the position of the Governor of St. Maarten and the constitutional limits attached to that office. He noted that the same advisory had also been sent to Parliament.

The Governor stated that his response was focused on what he considers the core elements of that advisory, while indicating that he could have raised questions about other portions as well, but chose not to do so in the interest of brevity. The Governor’s letter specifically addresses what he described as conclusions drawn in the advice of Van Rijn.

At the center of Governor Baly’s response is the claim that he improperly failed to sign a draft national decree relating to the suspension of a civil servant. He rejected that characterization outright. According to the Governor, his decision not to sign the draft decree did not amount to acting outside ministerial responsibility. Instead, he said the advice against him ignored a crucial reality, namely that there was a deep and irreconcilable difference of opinion between two ministers over whether the draft national decree could lawfully or properly be signed.

He stressed that the Council of Ministers was aware of the nature of that conflict. In such circumstances, he argued, it was not the Governor’s role to choose between one minister and another. Rather, under Article 39, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution of St. Maarten, it was exclusively the responsibility of the Council of Ministers to make that determination. The Governor stated that this is exactly what occurred.

Governor Baly also pushed back against the suggestion that he had barred the two ministers involved from attending meetings of the Council of Ministers where the issue was discussed. He stated that he did not prohibit their attendance. Instead, he said he only urgently advised, in keeping with his constitutional role, that they not be present for deliberations on the matter, citing Article 35, second paragraph, of the Constitution of St. Maarten. He added that the Council of Ministers itself then chose to deliberate and make decisions in the absence of the two officeholders.

The Governor further addressed the argument that his participation in meetings of the Council of Ministers was unconstitutional. He rejected that interpretation as well, stating that, under Article 39, fifth paragraph, of the Constitution of St. Maarten, there is nothing unconstitutional about the Governor taking part in meetings of the Council. He emphasized that both the Governor and the ministers are required to remain within the constitutional limits of their respective offices. At the same time, he said the constitutional framework of St. Maarten does not impose either substantive or formal restrictions on the Governor’s participation in Council of Ministers meetings.

Referring specifically to meetings held on January 16 and January 26, the Governor said he had carefully observed the constitutional limits placed on him during both sessions. He underlined that it was the Council of Ministers, not the Governor, that took the decisions made during those meetings. According to Governor Baly, those decisions were necessary to restore the unity of government policy. He said his own participation was aimed solely at promoting that unity, which he described as essential to the functioning of government.

Governor Baly concluded his letter by expressing confidence that his response would contribute constructively to further deliberation on the matter. The correspondence was signed in his capacity as Governor of St. Maarten.

This latest exchange places renewed focus on the constitutional relationship between the Governor and the Council of Ministers, particularly in matters where disputes arise within the executive branch itself. In his response, Governor Baly’s position is clear: where ministers are divided on a matter of governance, the Constitution places responsibility for resolving that conflict on the Council of Ministers, not on the Governor, and his own involvement must be understood within that constitutional framework.

For previous reporting on this issue: https://www.thepeoplestribunesxm.com/articles/legal-advisory-concludes-governor-overstepped-constitutional-boundaries

‍