PHILIPSBURG:--- Member of Parliament and vice chairman of the Justice Committee (MP) Lyndon Lewis has expressed deep concern and disappointment regarding recent footage circulating online that appears to show a group of armed individuals attempting to rob the Gold Finger jewelry store in Cole Bay, along Union Road.
Having personally attended the establishment’s opening, MP Lewis emphasized that the business represents a positive contribution to Sint Maarten's economy, providing employment opportunities and attracting commercial activity for residents and tourists alike. He stated that acts of violence such as this not only harm the business community but also damage the country’s reputation and economic stability.

MP Lewis noted his belief that the suspects may be young individuals from the community and stressed that such actions undermine the future and economic growth of our nation. He underscored that anyone found responsible must face the full extent of the law and the serious penalties associated with such crimes. "The individuals committing these crimes don't understand how much they are hurting the Sint Maarten product", MP Lewis stated.
MP Lewis further confirmed that he will continue discussions with the Minister of Justice, Ms. Nathalie Tackling, and other stakeholders to address public safety concerns and advocate for stronger measures to prevent similar incidents. He reiterated his commitment to ensuring that residents, visitors, and businesses feel secure throughout the country.

MP Lewis concluded by calling on the community to cooperate with law enforcement and to stand united against criminal activity, emphasizing that safeguarding national prosperity and public safety is a shared responsibility.

Cole Bay:---  An attempted robbery at a newly opened jewelry store in the Ark Building( Next to the Opal Building ) was thwarted on Thursday, leaving no injuries and no losses reported. The incident, confirmed by Police Spokesman Joe Josepha, has raised questions about the store's location and security measures.

According to police reports, armed gunmen targeted the jewelry store, which is situated in the same building as a police sub-station and near the French border. Despite their efforts, the robbers were unsuccessful and fled the scene empty-handed. Authorities have not disclosed further details about the suspects or their escape.

Police Inspector Joe Josepha revealed that, prior to the store's opening, law enforcement had advised the building's owner against establishing a jewelry business at that location. "We warned them that having a jewelry store so close to the French border could pose significant security risks," he stated. "Unfortunately, that advice was not heeded."

The Ark Building, which houses both the jewelry store and a police sub-station, is strategically located but also presents unique challenges due to its proximity to the border. The incident has reignited discussions about the importance of considering security risks when selecting business locations.

Despite the alarming nature of the attempted robbery, the situation ended without harm. "We are grateful that no one was injured and that nothing was stolen," said Josepha. Police investigations are ongoing, and authorities are urging anyone with information to come forward.

The jewelry store's management has yet to comment on the incident. Meanwhile, local residents and business owners are calling for increased security measures to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

Click here for Video

PHILIPSBURG:--- On February 19, 2026, the District Court of Overijssel delivered a significant verdict in a long-running corruption case involving the construction of the Simpson Bay Causeway Bridge in Sint Maarten. The court convicted a 60-year-old former company director of providing factual leadership in the bribery of a government minister. The ruling sheds light on the murky intersection of public infrastructure projects and political influence, underscoring corporate leaders' legal responsibilities to prevent corruption.
Background: The Bridge and the Bribe
The case centers on the tender process for the "Simpson Bay Causeway Bridge," a major infrastructure project in Sint Maarten initiated around 2009-2010. The project was overseen by the Simpson Bay Lagoon Authority Co. (SLAC), but the court found that the actual decision-making power lay with a high-ranking politician, referred to in the judgment. This individual served as a commissioner and later as the Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment, and Infrastructure (VROMI). For clarity the court is referring to former commissioner and Minister Theodore Heyliger who is currently serving time at the Pointe Blanche Prison.
Two construction companies, identified as [medeverdachte 1] B.V. and [medeverdachte 2] N.V., were vying for the contract. The defendant served as a director for these entities during the relevant period.
According to court documents, the companies entered into a consultancy agreement with an intermediary via his company. While the agreement ostensibly covered services like obtaining permits and recruiting local labor, the investigation revealed that the individual performed almost none of these tasks. Instead, the agreement served as a vehicle to channel bribe payments to the minister.
The Charges
The Public Prosecution Service accused the defendant of:
1. Primary Charge: Participating directly in official bribery as a co-perpetrator.
2. Subsidiary Charge: Giving orders to, or providing factual leadership for, the bribery committed by the construction companies.
The bribery allegations involved promising a substantial portion of the consultancy fee to the minister and paying out approximately $83,000. These payments were made to influence the minister to award the bridge construction contract to the defendant's companies, violating his official duty to act neutrally and with integrity.
Court Findings: Influence Peddling and Corporate Negligence
The court acquitted the defendant of the primary charge of direct participation but found him guilty of the subsidiary charge: providing factual leadership to the bribery committed by the companies.
The "Shadow" Decision Maker
A crucial element of the ruling was the court's determination that while SLAC formally managed the tender, the minister held the real power. Witnesses testified that the minister "called the shots" and that nothing happened without his approval. Internal emails from the construction company explicitly noted that the bridge design needed to please the minister, describing him as an "important factor."
The Sham Consultancy Agreement
The court found that the construction companies knew—or should have known—that the consultancy fees paid were being funneled to the minister.
• The intermediary company was an offshore entity.
• The defendant signed the agreement after the contract had already been awarded, rendering the listed "lobbying" services moot.
• The defendant failed to conduct any due diligence on the intermediary or verify that actual work was performed.
By signing this agreement without oversight, the court ruled that the defendant knowingly accepted the "substantial chance" that the funds would be used for corruption.
The Verdict and Sentence
The court ruled that the defendant’s actions not only distorted fair competition but also deeply damaged public trust in government administration. The bribery costs were ultimately baked into the construction price, meaning the people of Sint Maarten effectively paid for the corruption themselves.
Taking into account the defendant's clean criminal record and the fact that the legal process exceeded the reasonable term by two years (the investigation began in 2019), the court mitigated the sentence.
The Sentence:
• Fine: €30,000 (approx. $32,000 USD).
• Alternative Custody: 158 days of detention if the fine is not paid.
The court noted that this fine was higher than those given to co-defendants in related cases (€20,000), reflecting the higher level of responsibility the defendant held as a director.
Implications for Governance and Compliance
This ruling serves as a stark reminder to corporate executives operating in international markets. It highlights that "willful blindness" is not a defense. Directors cannot hide behind intermediaries or claim ignorance when they fail to vet consultants or verify services in high-risk environments.
The judgment reinforces that the Dutch legal system will hold corporate leaders personally accountable for corruption facilitated by their companies, even when the acts occur overseas. It underscores the necessity for robust internal compliance regarding anti-corruption clauses and third-party due diligence.

Click here for the verdict handed down on Thursday.

~Court Appearance Scheduled for February 24~

PHILIPSBURG:---  Prosecutors are moving ahead with a case against Member of Parliament Raeyhon Peterson of the Party for Progress (PFP) following an alleged physical altercation outside an adult entertainment venue that sparked public attention and a police investigation.

The incident reportedly occurred outside a nightclub in the Simpson Bay area, where a dispute inside the establishment escalated into a confrontation outside. Video footage of the altercation circulated widely on social media at the time, prompting public debate and calls for clarity regarding the circumstances.

Authorities subsequently launched an investigation into what was described as a public disturbance involving Peterson and other individuals. The matter is now entering the judicial phase.

According to constitutional procedures under Article 123 of the Constitution of St. Maarten, prosecution of a sitting Member of Parliament for a serious criminal offense (“misdrijf”) cannot proceed through the standard process. Instead, the Attorney-General must formally request authorization from the Common Court of Justice before prosecution can proceed.

Peterson is scheduled to appear in court on Tuesday, February 24, when the Court is expected to consider the request to move forward with prosecution. If authorization is granted, prosecutors would then be permitted to take formal steps such as summoning the MP, seeking pre-trial measures, or requesting a judicial investigation.

While prosecution steps require court approval, investigative work has reportedly continued in the meantime.

The case has drawn significant public interest given Peterson’s role as a sitting parliamentarian. As of now, no final determination of guilt has been made, and the court hearing will focus on whether the prosecution may formally proceed.

Further updates are expected following the February 24 hearing.