~SAM leader rejects allegations linking him to Heyliger’s continued incarceration and says his silence was wrongly interpreted as guilt.~
PHILIPSBURG:--- Member of Parliament and Soualiga Action Movement (SAM) leader Franklin “Frankie” Meyers has forcefully denied allegations that he attempted to influence the continued incarceration of former United People’s Party leader Theodore “Theo” Heyliger.
Speaking on the floor of Parliament during the continuation of the 2026 budget debate on Wednesday, Meyers said the allegation had begun to “live a life of its own” and that he could no longer allow his silence to be interpreted as an admission of guilt.
Meyers declared unequivocally that he never called anyone or stated that Heyliger should remain incarcerated.
“I would like to let the people of St. Maarten know, in no uncertain terms, and I would like to make it emphatically clear that I, Franklin Antonio Meyers, at no time—past, present, or in the future—have ever called anyone or said that Theodore Emmanuel Heyliger should remain in jail,” Meyers told Parliament.
The SAM leader said he generally does not defend himself against claims when he knows he had nothing to do with the matter. However, he said his decision to remain silent allowed questions about his possible involvement to grow.
“Apparently, my silence has put sort of like a guilt question on me,” Meyers said.
Rumor allegedly began before Justice Minister was appointed
Meyers traced the allegation to the period immediately after SAM joined the governing coalition and was assigned political responsibility for the Ministry of Justice.
He said that within two weeks of SAM being offered the Justice portfolio, someone approached him and claimed people were already saying that, now that Meyers had control of Justice, he would ensure Heyliger was not released.
According to Meyers, the rumor began before Nathalie Tackling had even been appointed Minister of Justice.
“So it started. I didn’t even appoint Ms. Tackling at that point. The rumor had started then,” Meyers said.
The timing Meyers highlighted is significant. He maintained that the allegation was circulating before his party’s candidate formally assumed leadership of the ministry that oversees the prison and other parts of the justice system.
However, Meyers did not identify who first made the allegation, who allegedly spread it or what evidence, if any, had been offered to support it.
He also did not identify the person who approached him shortly after SAM received the Justice portfolio.
“I marched alongside him”
Meyers sought to counter the accusation by reminding the public of his previous public support for Heyliger.
He recalled the August 29, 2018 march that began at the former Government Administration Building and proceeded to Parliament, where a protest letter was presented.
“I marched alongside him,” Meyers said twice for emphasis.
He also recalled wearing a Carnival costume the following year bearing the message “Free Theo.”
According to Meyers, some of the people now attempting to portray him as responsible for keeping Heyliger incarcerated were previously calling for Heyliger to be imprisoned.
“The very people today who are proponents and using their influence to say that I am the one who is trying to keep him in jail, those were the ones who were saying, ‘Lock him up,’” Meyers told Parliament.
He said the historical record and media reports remain available online and can be examined by the public.
“I know where I stood then, and I know where I stand now,” Meyers said.
Denies discussing Heyliger’s incarceration
Meyers went further than simply denying that he asked for Heyliger to remain incarcerated. He said he never participated in any discussion concerning keeping Heyliger in jail.
“I have never had a discussion where it pertains to the incarceration of Mr. Theo, in regard to him staying in jail,” Meyers said.
“That does not concern me. It does not concern me.”
The allegation touches on a highly sensitive issue because SAM presently holds political responsibility for the Ministry of Justice through Minister Nathalie Tackling.
A political party’s control of a ministry, however, does not give its parliamentary leader lawful authority to determine whether an individual remains incarcerated. Detention and sentence-execution decisions must follow applicable laws and judicial and administrative procedures—not the wishes of politicians.
If anyone possesses evidence that Meyers improperly contacted a minister, prison official, prosecutor, committee member or another authority concerning Heyliger’s incarceration, that evidence should be produced and investigated.
If no such evidence exists, the allegation should not be repeatedly circulated as fact.
Allegations require evidence
Meyers’ denial was categorical, but it does not by itself reveal how the allegation originated or why it persisted.
Who first claimed that Meyers was attempting to keep Heyliger incarcerated?
Was the claim based on a direct conversation, a document, a message or merely political gossip?
Was any Justice official approached?
Did anyone make a formal complaint?
And was Heyliger or his legal team ever provided with information suggesting political interference?
Those questions matter because accusations of political involvement in a person’s incarceration are extremely serious. Such claims should not be weaponized without evidence, but neither should credible evidence—if it exists—be suppressed.
Meyers has now placed a clear denial on the official parliamentary record. He said he supported Heyliger publicly in the past, marched alongside him and never participated in discussions aimed at keeping him incarcerated.
He also made clear that he does not intend to address the allegation again.
“I’m not going to address this issue again,” Meyers said.
His statement now places the responsibility on those making the allegation.
Either they must produce credible evidence supporting their claims, or they must acknowledge that they have been circulating an unsubstantiated accusation against an elected Member of Parliament.
Political disagreement is expected. Fabricating or repeating claims about interference in the justice system without evidence is something entirely different.