DP studying the different
interpretations of ERNA
PHILIPSBURG--The Democratic Party (DP) is studying the different interpretations given to whether a Commissioner can vote on a motion of no confidence brought to the Island Council floor against him or her.
While the same laws govern the island territories of Curaçao and St. Maarten, different decisions were taken by their Island Councils regarding the procedure to be followed when voting on a motion of no confidence.
St. Maarten’s Commissioner Maria Buncamper-Molanus was not allowed to vote on two motions of no confidence against her – one on Wednesday and the other nine days earlier, on June 9. However, Commissioner Zita Jesus-Leito of Curaçao was allowed to vote on a motion of no confidence against her in the Curaçao Island Council about two months ago.
Jesus-Leito said that based on a request of Forsa Kòrsou Island Council member Gregory Damoen, the Legal Department of the island territory of Curaçao had requested legal advice on the matter. “The legal department of the island territory of Curaçao advised that I was allowed to vote,” Jesus-Leito explained Thursday.
Former Acting Lt. Governor of Curaçao and member of opposition party MAN Kenneth Gijsbertha, one of the initiative takers on the motion of no confidence against Jesus-Leito, told The Daily Herald on Wednesday that advice had been requested on whether Jesus-Leito was allowed to vote on the motion. He said even the Cabinet of the Governor had been consulted and the advices had stated the same: the Commissioner was allowed to vote.
However, Jesus-Leito said she was aware of only one advice, that of the Legal Department of the island territory of Curaçao.
St. Maarten Commissioner Sarah Wescot-Williams said during a press conference on Thursday that it was important for the DP that a different interpretation had been given in a similar case in Curaçao. “Article 38 basically states that a member must abstain from voting if the matter concerns them personally,” she explained.
That is the article that in the history of St. Maarten has been used to prevent a person against whom the motion of no confidence was directed from voting on that motion, she said. She explained that article 31 – the rules of order of the Island Council – stated specifically that by a motion is understood a motivated statement in which a judgement or a wish is expressed.
“The million-dollar question is whether a motion against someone affects that person personally or is it a matter personally of that person. And from indications another interpretation, the one living now that the motion should have been voted on by Buncamper-Molanus as well, is based on the interpretation that it’s not a personal matter relating to the Commissioner.
“It’s a judgement expressed by one or more members in the Island Council. But, is that a matter that personally concerns her?”
Wescot-Williams said that if reports received seemed to suggest that the Cabinet of the Governor of the Netherlands Antilles also had given an opinion on a similar situation in Curaçao and those advices stated a Commissioner could vote on a motion of no confidence submitted against him or her, then the Executive Council of St. Maarten would suggest that the motion passed on June 18 be sent for annulment.
