PHILIPSBURG:--- The Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten has delivered its verdict in the closely watched defamation dispute between attorney Jairo G. Bloem and Member of Parliament Ardwell M. R. Irion, ruling that Irion must publish a rectification in The People’s Tribune following certain unlawful and damaging remarks made about Bloem.
The judgment, handed down by Judge L.J. Saarloos in summary proceedings (kort geding), underscores the delicate balance between freedom of expression and protection of personal reputation, particularly when public officials criticize private citizens involved in politically sensitive appointments.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after reports surfaced that Bloem was being considered for the position of Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten (CBCS).
His potential appointment sparked controversy and debate in political and media circles. In response, Bloem appeared on radio with Lady Grace to explain his position. MP Irion then reacted with statements in both a radio interview and an article published on September 30, 2025, in The People’s Tribune.
Bloem argued that Irion’s comments in that publication unjustly attacked his personal integrity and professional reputation, exceeding the bounds of legitimate political criticism. He sought a court order compelling rectification and damages.
Irion, represented by attorney Mr. Z.J.A. Bary, defended his comments as legitimate public-interest expressions and part of his duty as a parliamentarian to scrutinize government appointments. Bloem was represented by Mr. L.C. Peterson.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle that freedom of expression (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Sint Maarten Constitution) is vital in a democratic society but may be limited when necessary to protect another’s reputation and rights.
Judge Saarloos emphasized that such cases require a balancing of interests — distinguishing between:
- Factual assertions, which must be provably true, and
- Value judgments, which enjoy wider protection unless they are gratuitously insulting.
The Court further noted that politicians must exercise restraint when discussing private individuals, especially regarding personal character or integrity, even when addressing public issues.
Key Findings on the Statements
The Court reviewed specific passages from The People’s Tribune article under the section “A Troubling Track Record.”
Irion was quoted as saying that:
- Bloem’s law firm had been retained by NV GEBE with “large invoices for legal advice criticized internally as excessive,”
- Bloem “admitted” those invoices were “quickly approved,” and
- Bloem personally exhibited a “savior attitude,” being “desperate” and driven by “self-promotion” to secure the Central Bank post.
The Court’s Assessment:
- On the GEBE invoices:
The Court found Irion’s reference to “large invoices” supported by documents, including a 2021 internal GEBE memo describing certain legal fees as “exorbitant.” Thus, this part was not defamatory. - On Bloem’s “admission”:
Bloem did acknowledge in an open letter that his firm was contracted directly and that invoices were swiftly approved, but the Court found Irion misrepresented this as Bloem admitting to excessive claims. That distortion required rectification. - On the “savior” and “self-promotion” comments:
The Court ruled that labeling Bloem as “desperate” and motivated by “self-promotion” crossed the line into being unnecessarily offensive and personally damaging, particularly given Bloem’s candidacy for a position of high trust.
Judge Saarloos stated that while Irion could legitimately question the process of Bloem’s nomination, attacking Bloem’s personal motives and character went beyond acceptable limits.
“Attacking persons publicly does not belong to the core tasks of a parliamentarian,” the Court observed, adding that Irion “should have exercised more restraint regarding Bloem’s person.”
The Verdict
The Court partially upheld Bloem’s claim and issued the following orders:
- Rectification:
Within 48 hours of the ruling, Irion must publish the following correction prominently on the front page of The People’s Tribune:
“By order of the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten, I am required to rectify statements I made in an article published in The People’s Tribune on September 30, 2025.
In the article, I wrongly stated that Bloem had admitted that his office had submitted excessive claims to GEBE in 2019 and 2020.
I also wrongly portrayed Mr. Bloem as a desperate man who was only interested in self-promotion for the position of chairman of the board of directors of the Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten.”
— Ardwell Irion, Member of Parliament.
- Penalty:
A USD 1,000 daily fine (up to a maximum of USD 50,000) will be imposed for noncompliance. - Legal Costs:
Irion must pay NAƒ 1,699.50 in legal costs, plus additional post-judgment costs and statutory interest if unpaid by October 30, 2025. - Other Relief Denied:
The Court declined Bloem’s request for a blanket prohibition on future statements and denied compensation for extrajudicial expenses.
Irion’s Counterclaim Dismissed
Irion had also filed a counterclaim, arguing that Bloem’s own radio comments unfairly suggested he had bypassed the legal appointment procedure for the CBCS board.
The Court found no basis for rectification, ruling that Bloem’s remarks merely described the factual sequence of events without directly accusing Irion of wrongdoing.
Irion’s counterclaim was dismissed, and he was again ordered to pay NAƒ 1,000 in legal fees to Bloem.
Implications of the Ruling
This verdict represents a measured middle ground:
- It reaffirms that parliamentarians may freely critique policy and governance,
- but must avoid personal attacks or misrepresentations about private individuals.
The Court’s decision also underscores the judiciary's independence in moderating the tone of political discourse — a reminder that public debate must remain factual and respectful, even amid intense political rivalry.
For Bloem, the ruling serves as a partial vindication of his integrity.
For Irion, while much of his commentary was upheld as fair political criticism, the Court’s order to retract certain claims signals a clear judicial boundary against character assassination under the guise of oversight.
Conclusion
The Court of First Instance’s decision in Bloem v. Irion (SXM202501079) sends a strong message about responsible public discourse in Sint Maarten.
Freedom of speech remains vital — but as Judge Saarloos emphasized, with that freedom comes the duty to respect truth and reputation, particularly from those who hold public office.