PHILIPSBURG:--- Member of Parliament Darryl York raised pointed questions on Wednesday regarding the process followed by Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs in nominating a candidate for the Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Maarten (CBCS) supervisory board.
Speaking during a meeting of Parliament, MP York said he entered the session “with an open mind,” emphasizing that while there seemed to be consensus on what was done in the nomination process, there remained uncertainty as to whether it was done correctly.
“At this current point, it seems like we agree on what was done — but not yet on whether it was right,” York told Parliament.
Questions About ‘Political Firestorm’ and Transparency
York began by requesting clarification on the Minister’s earlier reference to a “political firestorm,” asking what she meant by the term in the context of the ongoing public debate surrounding the nomination.
He also inquired whether the list of potential candidates mentioned in the CBCS Supervisory Board’s January 21 letter had ever been officially shared with the Minister. According to York’s reading of the documents provided, it appeared the Minister had not received those names.
“Can the Minister further elaborate whether those candidates still exist, or if it’s something that the Minister is not yet aware of?” he asked.
York went on to probe whether the government’s legal affairs department had reviewed and vetted the advice that led to the conditional nomination, asking whether the advice had followed the proper procedural steps before it reached the Council of Ministers.
Challenge Over ‘Conditional Nomination’
A key part of York’s intervention focused on what he described as the lack of legal basis for the term “conditional nomination.”
“Where in the Charter does it make reference to a conditional nomination?” he asked. “We have nominees and we have candidates — but I cannot find any clause in the Charter that speaks of a conditional nomination.”
He also sought clarification on who serves as the first line of legal advice to government, stressing that clarity on this point was essential to determine whether due process had been properly followed in the nomination.
Minister’s Efforts to Retain Chairmanship
York pressed further, asking the Minister to substantiate her earlier claim that she had “begged and pleaded” with the former Minister of Finance to retain the chairmanship of the CBCS in the hands of St. Maarten.
“Was this done verbally or via email?” York questioned. “Because the Minister shared several emails today, but I didn’t see that particular correspondence. If such an email exists, I’d like to see it.”
He also questioned whether the former nominee was ever presented to or discussed with the CBCS Board before his name was put forward as a potential appointee.
Committee or Confidants? Changing Narratives
MP York spent considerable time addressing what he viewed as inconsistencies in the Minister’s explanations of how the candidate search was conducted.
During an earlier meeting, Minister Gumbs had reportedly stated that a “committee of like-minded individuals” assisted in identifying potential candidates. However, in the most recent meeting, she described the process as having been done through “trusted confidants.”
“Six weeks ago, it was a committee. Today, it’s confidants. Tomorrow, perhaps, it might be a coincidence,” York said wryly.
“Governance isn’t about wordplay — it’s about consistency.”
York argued that this shifting terminology called into question the transparency of the selection process and whether any formal applications had ever been received.
“Was this a formal search, or just a few calls to friends asking, ‘Who do you think I should nominate?’” he asked. “If this was how it was done, that would explain why my earlier question on whether applications were submitted went unanswered.”
Access to Advice and Good Governance
The MP also expressed concern about the confidential nature of the advice used to support the nomination. The Minister had previously said that such advice could not be shared with Members of Parliament.
However, York pointed out a contradiction, referencing the former nominee’s public statements that he had personally reviewed his own advice and was involved in ensuring it was sound.
“If Members of Parliament cannot see the advice, how can the nominee himself have read and contributed to it?” York asked. “Either the nominee is lying, or we have a serious governance problem.”
He emphasized that his critique was not merely about the actions taken, but about whether they upheld the principles of good governance and accountability.
“The Minister hasn’t corrected the record of confidants versus committees or advice versus no advice — she simply restyled it,” York concluded. “My issue is not the story, but the inconsistency in how it’s being told.”
Awaiting Clarity
York said he would await the outcome of discussions between the President of Parliament and the Council of Ministers regarding the extent to which internal government advices can or should be shared with MPs.
For now, he said, his questions remain focused on establishing clarity, transparency, and adherence to procedure in the CBCS nomination process.
“I’m not saying what was done is wrong,” York summarized, “but before I can say it was right — I need to understand exactly how it was done.”