MPs Demand Proof, Documentation and Equal Integrity Standards in Prime Minister’s Dispute With VSA Minister

GREAT BAY--Members of Parliament pressed Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina for proof, documentation and consistency on Monday, after his presentation to Parliament on the dispute involving Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor Richinel Brug.

The meeting focused on allegations surrounding the relationship between the Prime Minister, Minister Brug, the URSM board and matters connected to the Ministry of VSA, including the Mental Health Foundation project, the healthcare professional registry, medical licensing, government advice procedures and alleged conflicts of interest.

Most MPs basically focused on similar themes for the day. The wider discussion centered on proof, timing, accountability and whether the same integrity standards would be applied across the Council of Ministers. MPs questioned whether Parliament was being asked to act on partial information, whether internal coalition problems were being moved into Parliament, and whether allegations against one Minister were being treated differently from allegations involving others.

MP Omar Ottley said the Prime Minister correctly stated that persons making allegations must provide proof, but argued that the Prime Minister then proceeded to make claims of his own without immediately presenting the supporting evidence to Parliament.

Ottley raised questions about alleged changes to terms of reference, whether advice from the Minister of VSA was delayed or withheld from the Council of Ministers agenda, whether confidential information was shared with a preferred candidate, and what legal authority the Prime Minister had to hold back another Minister’s advice.

He also questioned the Prime Minister’s explanation concerning the approval of a medical professional to practice in St. Maarten, saying the public needed a legal explanation rather than a statement that the Prime Minister personally knew the individual.

MP Lyndon Lewis questioned the role of the URSM board in matters he said should properly be handled within the Council of Ministers. He asked how a political party board became involved in government business, particularly where alleged decisions or conduct within a Ministry are concerned.

Lewis also asked whether any formal complaint had been filed with the Prosecutor’s Office or the National Detectives regarding the alleged integrity breaches. He said that if serious wrongdoing occurred at the highest levels of public office, the matter should not only be referred to the Integrity Chamber, but also to the proper investigative authorities. He added that if allegations against the Prime Minister are substantiated, his position must also be questioned, stressing that integrity cannot be applied selectively.

MP Francisco Lacroes questioned why the Prime Minister had not also provided Parliament with a bundle of supporting documents, especially if he was responding to claims supported by written material. Lacroes said that without a full package from the Prime Minister, MPs could not make a fair assessment.

He also asked why, if the concerns involving VSA were known for more than a year, they were only now being brought forward publicly. He said such timing raises doubts among ordinary citizens and creates the impression that the matter was kept aside until it became politically useful.

Lacroes further questioned the appointment and legal status of persons connected to the Prime Minister’s cabinet, including the former Secretary General and a legal adviser, and asked whether proper procedures were followed.

MP Doran questioned whether the Prime Minister was sufficiently cautious in involving himself in matters that legally fall under another minister’s portfolio, particularly the Ministry of VSA. He asked the Prime Minister to define the proper boundary between coordination as head of government and interference in another minister’s authority, noting that complaints about the Prime Minister’s involvement have reportedly surfaced before from other ministries, including VROMI, ECYS and Justice.

Doran asked whether the Prime Minister had ever given direct or indirect instructions to civil servants within VSA on matters that should fall under Minister Brug’s authority. He also questioned whether civil servants were ever instructed to bypass their minister, department head, Secretary General or normal chain of command, and asked the Prime Minister to explain why multiple allegations have now surfaced that civil servants felt pressured or uncomfortable with his involvement.

A major part of Doran’s comments focused on medical licensing and liability. He asked whether it was true that the Prime Minister supported, signed, recommended or pressured for the approval of medical professionals to practice as general practitioners or specialists despite negative advice or concerns from the Department of Public Health, the Inspectorate, the Council of Public Health or another competent body. Doran questioned who would carry liability if something went wrong with a patient under the care of a professional who allegedly did not meet the legal requirements: the acting minister who signed, the sitting minister, the medical institution, or the government of St. Maarten.

Doran also asked whether the Prime Minister stood to benefit personally or professionally from the healthcare professional registry process. He questioned whether someone had been engaged by the Prime Minister to draft the BIG or healthcare professional registry legislation without the proper formal process, whether that person was formally contracted, whether Legal Affairs, VSA or the Council of Ministers approved the role, and whether there was a formal advice supporting the engagement.

MP Ardwell Irion said he hoped the Prime Minister would return with convincing answers and documents, because Minister Brug had presented written material while Parliament was being asked to accept the Prime Minister’s account largely on trust. Irion said the Prime Minister’s professional background as a respected doctor and surgeon does not automatically settle political questions.

“Working in the hospital is not politics,” Irion said, adding that he has seen people change once they enter politics. Irion questioned when the Prime Minister first became aware of the alleged integrity breaches and whether he informed the coalition at that time. He said it would be difficult to understand how a coalition that regularly speaks about good governance and integrity could keep such concerns quiet for a year and a half, only for them to surface when politically convenient.

He asked who specifically informed the Prime Minister that the Chief of Staff allegedly created the advice, participated in the process and contacted other entities. Irion said Parliament should not rely on vague references to information received, but should be told what information the Prime Minister had and from whom.

He also asked whether the Prime Minister verified the matter with the Ministry itself, including the Secretary General, financial controller, department heads or other civil servants involved in the process. Irion said if payments were made above the original contract amount, there should be documents showing who authorized them and through what route. “I want facts,” Irion said, urging the Prime Minister to substantiate his claims and bring clarity.

Irion also questioned whether the same standards would apply to other Ministers if contracts were issued, service-level agreements were continued, or payments were made beyond contract amounts or without proper legal or budgetary basis. He asked whether such actions would also be treated as integrity breaches.

He further asked whether the Prime Minister formally addressed the matter with Minister Brug in early 2025, whether Minister Brug was given an opportunity to respond, and whether the Prime Minister reported the alleged integrity concerns to the Integrity Chamber, the Ombudsman or Parliament when they first became known.

Irion said the timeline gives the impression that the matter may have been held back and used only after the political relationship deteriorated.

MP Franklin Meyers said he agreed with the view that the matter appeared to be an internal battle between two members of the Council of Ministers, one which had now reached the Parliament and the wider country. However, Meyers said he preferred to approach the matter by focusing on broader principles of integrity, transparency and protection for persons who report misconduct.

Meyers asked the Prime Minister to explain how he defines integrity in public office and what specific behaviors best demonstrate integrity in his day-to-day role as Prime Minister. He also asked what concrete steps the government has taken since Dr. Mercelina assumed office to strengthen transparency in the public sector.

Meyers further asked how government protects whistleblowers who report misconduct in public institutions, signaling that the discussion should not only focus on the dispute between two Ministers, but also on the systems government has in place to promote ethical conduct and safeguard persons who come forward with concerns.

‍