SXMElections.com

PHILIPSBURG--The Joint Court of Justice on Thursday heard the Prosecutor's appeal in the case against four persons allegedly involved in selling or buying votes on behalf of United People's (UP) party in the September 2010 election.

In August 2014, the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible the Prosecutor's Office's cases against these men because it had failed to also investigate the roles of UP and its leadership in the scheme. One of the suspects in this case told the Court the Prosecutor's Office is applying double standards.

Initially, the case involved five suspects, but this person passed away in June 2014.

If the Prosecutor's Office wins the appeal, the case will be referred to the Court of First Instance for retrial. In case the Appeals Court agrees with the lesser court's decision the Prosecutor's Office can launch a final appeal at the High Court.

Class justice

According to the Court of First Instance, the Prosecutor's Office had been in default. It had given the impression it was administering "class justice" in its decision to prosecute only the "vote sellers," who had stated they had asked for money because they were in financial trouble.

The Prosecutor's Office had requested suspended prison sentences of three months, with two years' probation, 150-200 hours of community service and that the Court take away suspects' rights to vote. In addition, the Prosecutor requested that suspect R.H. be deprived of his right to be elected.

The alleged vote sellers in the so-called "Masbangu case" were all (former) officers of the then-Police Force of St. Maarten, St. Eustatius and Saba and of Voluntary Corps of St. Maarten VKS.

Despite the fact that, according to the Judge of the Court of First Instance, there were indications that UP had its own registration system in place for people requesting money to ensure they would indeed vote for this party, the Prosecutor's Office had refrained from prosecuting UP and/or its leadership, which the Judge said was unfair, unjust and unequal treatment in comparison with the five suspects.

The Court specifically held it against the Prosecutor's Office that the role of UP and its leadership had not even been investigated, whereas the case file itself contained information warranting such an investigation.

According to information obtained by the Criminal Intelligence Unit, UP party leader Theo Heyliger allegedly had deposited US $3 million into UP's election fund out of his own pocket. There were also a number of statements indicating that UP had handed out money.

Thursday's hearing solely dealt with the question whether the decision to prosecute only four suspects and not members of UP party leadership constituted arbitrariness and had been in violation of the principle of equal treatment.

Wide discretion

In requesting a retrial, Solicitor-General Taco Stein said the lesser judge's conclusions were not justified. He said the Prosecutor's Office has "wide discretion" in deciding who to prosecute or not. Stein said such decisions do not automatically lead to inadmissibility. "The High Court is very reluctant in doing so."

Stein maintained that the decision to limit the investigations had to do with insufficient capacity with the National Detectives and contested that it concerned equal cases. "The cases were essentially different and much more complex," Stein said in pointing out the differences between vote sellers and buyers.

The Solicitor-General refuted allegations of "class justice" and denied the Prosecutor's Office had deliberately kept UP-party leadership "out of the wind."

The suspects' lawyers all maintained that the Prosecutor's Office should be declared inadmissible in their clients' cases, but not subscribed to every of the Court of First Instance's conclusions.

Attorney Cor Merx said his client had lost his right to a fair trial. His colleague Jairo Bloem said the Solicitor-General's pleading had failed to hit home. "The decision by the Court of First Instance still stands. In case of a conviction my client, who is a VKS officer, will lose his job while the ones who have organised this [vote buying – Ed.] will go free."

He also pointed out that it is a well-known fact that politicians are handing out expensive T-shirts, a couple hundred dollars, refrigerators or other appliances during election time.

Damage

Attorney Eldon Sulvaran not only focussed his pleadings on allegations of arbitrariness, but also said the suspects had been victims of undue delays in the hearing of their cases.

He said the simple case, in itself, had caused a lot of damage. "Our clients cannot be convicted if there is no evidence against the UP party and its leaders," Sulvaran claimed. "The curtain falls because after four years no evidence against the UP party has been found," he said.

Suspect A.R.W.M., who was not represented by an attorney, said the Prosecutor's Office is applying double standards. "I am sitting at home for years without a salary or anything," he told the three-judge panel, which will give its decision on this matter on May 5.