Saint Martin:--- On Wednesday, January 14, 2026, Louis Mussington, President of the Collectivité of Saint-Martin, was questioned by the gendarmerie as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations of public fund mismanagement. The interrogation, which lasted the entire day, stems from a procedure initiated in 2023 following a letter sent by four opposition members to the public prosecutor. The letter raised concerns about the recruitment practices for several positions within the Collectivité.

In an official statement released on Friday, January 16, President Mussington confirmed his participation in the scheduled hearing. He emphasized his commitment to transparency and his willingness to cooperate fully with investigators. "This procedure is ongoing, and it is not possible at this stage to delve into the details of the elements being examined," he stated. He also reaffirmed the Collectivité's dedication to serving the population while adhering strictly to public service regulations and the rule of law.

Investigation Details

The prosecutor's office in Basse-Terre confirmed that President Mussington was placed in police custody during the questioning on January 14. The investigation focuses on allegations of public funds mismanagement, particularly concerning the hiring of individuals reportedly close to the President since his election in 2022. The prosecutor's office clarified that no decisions have been made yet, as the investigation remains ongoing.

While President Mussington's custody was lifted on Wednesday evening, the prosecutor's office acknowledged that additional cases are under review. These cases are reportedly linked to the same 2023 letter from opposition members, which highlighted potential irregularities in recruitment practices.

President Mussington’s Response

In his official communiqué, President Mussington reiterated his respect for the institutions and his commitment to transparency. "I remain fully prepared to answer all the investigators' questions in a spirit of transparency and absolute respect for the institutions," he stated. He also reassured the public that the Collectivité of Saint-Martin continues its work in service of the population, operating within the framework of public service laws and regulations.

Broader Implications

This investigation marks a significant moment for the Collectivité of Saint-Martin, as it raises questions about governance and accountability within the administration. The outcome of the investigation could have far-reaching implications for the leadership of the Collectivité and its operations.

As the investigation progresses, the public awaits further updates from the prosecutor's office and the Collectivité. For now, President Mussington remains steadfast in his commitment to transparency and cooperation, while the Collectivité continues its mission to serve the people of Saint-Martin.

PHILIPSBURG: --- The Nature Policy Plan presented to Parliament by the Minister of VROMI Patrice Gumbs Jr. has been met with sharp and deserved criticism, most notably from Member of Parliament Ardwell Irion. What was presented as a vision for St. Maarten's future appears to be little more than a document filled with lofty ideas, devoid of practical application, financial backing, or a clear sense of direction. It is a plan that sounds nice in a meeting room but falls apart under the slightest scrutiny of real-world governance.

MP Irion rightfully questioned the very foundation of this policy: its executability. A policy that the government cannot implement is not a policy; it is a wish list. The document addresses numerous invasive species, yet the government has shown no capacity to manage the existing, well-known problems. What is the point of adding more species to a list when there is no strategy, no manpower, and no budget to deal with the ones already wreaking havoc? A policy must be a tool for action, not a decorative item for a shelf. This plan offers no comfort that the government is prepared to execute any of its proposals.

Furthermore, the discussion around the policy has cast a harsh light on the Ministry's current operations, which MP Irion described as bordering on favoritism. The inconsistent application of rules for civil works and excavation permits is a glaring issue. While some developers face intense scrutiny, others appear to proceed without the required permits, seemingly unnoticed by the Ministry. If the government cannot enforce its existing regulations fairly and transparently, how can the public trust it to implement a new, far-reaching nature policy? This inconsistency undermines the rule of law and suggests a system where who you know is more important than what is right.

Perhaps the most significant flaw in this proposed policy is the complete absence of a financial plan. A vision without a budget is a hallucination. MP Irion correctly pointed out that for a policy to be taken seriously, it must be tied to concrete financial allocations. The Minister failed to show where, or if, this nature plan is reflected in the 2026 budget. Without dedicated line items for its various components—from managing invasive species to land acquisition, the policy is effectively dead-on arrival. It is an empty promise to the people of St. Maarten. How can Parliament be expected to approve a plan that has no financial substance?

The policy also demonstrates a stunning lack of prioritization. It lists invasive species but fails to identify which ones pose a critical threat to our environment. As MP Irion noted, some "invasive" species have been part of our ecosystem for a century, while other non-invasive populations, like stray cats, are actively decimating local wildlife now. The plan lacks the nuance and strategic direction needed to tackle the most urgent environmental challenges. It reads like a textbook definition of nature management rather than a targeted plan for St. Maarten's unique circumstances.

This policy is not just a missed opportunity; it is a concerning reflection of a government presenting incomplete and unworkable plans. The people of St. Maarten deserve more than just nice-sounding documents. We need actionable strategies, transparent operations, and fiscally responsible planning. Until the Minister of VROMI can present a policy that includes a realistic execution plan, a clear budget, and a commitment to fair enforcement, this Nature Policy Plan will remain exactly what it appears to be: a hollow document with no real intention of being brought to life.

PHILIPSBURG:--- In a fiery Central Committee meeting focused on the Nature Policy Plan, Member of Parliament Ardwell Irion delivered a blistering critique of the current administration's handling of the Belvedere property purchase. The former Finance Minister accused the government of procedural shortcuts, a glaring lack of transparency, and operating on a basis of "favoritism" rather than fair and consistent policy.
MP Irion’s questioning dismantled the government's narrative surrounding the land deal, raising serious doubts about the integrity of the process. He pointedly asked whether Parliament had approved the purchase, a critical step required for the original Belvedere acquisition years ago. "What's the difference between that purchase of Belvedere and this purchase of Belvedere?" he challenged, highlighting a concerning departure from established procedure.
The MP’s scrutiny intensified as he probed the financial details of the transaction. He demanded to see the government’s own appraisal reports for the land, questioning whether the administration had simply accepted the seller's valuation without due diligence. "Typically, the government does not depend on appraisal reports of the sellers," Irion stated, implying that to do so would be another example of the government "operating in favoritism." He called for the appraisal reports for both properties involved in the deal to be made public.
A central point of contention was the "extra" land the current minister claimed to have negotiated. MP Irion cast doubt on this claim, suggesting this portion was already part of a previous agreement made by former councils for cultural and historical preservation. He demanded clarity: "Wasn't that already part of the then agreement? Or was that only in 2024, 2025 negotiated?" This line of questioning suggests the current government may be taking credit for a provision secured by its predecessors.
Furthermore, Irion slammed the absence of this significant land purchase from the new 2025-2030 Nature Policy Plan. He pointed out that previous policies included government-owned lands such as Emilio Wilson Park, but the newly acquired Belvedere property is conspicuously absent. "The government recently purchased a huge amount of land. Why is it not reflected in the policy? What is the plan with this?" he asked. This omission, according to Irion, reveals a profound lack of vision and planning.
The MP's remarks painted a picture of a government making major decisions in a vacuum, without budgetary foresight or a coherent strategy. He questioned where the operational funds for maintaining the property as a public park would come from, noting that such expenses were not reflected in the budget. By failing to integrate the purchase into its own policy and budget, the government, in Irion's view, proves it is not serious about its stated goals. The entire affair, from the murky purchase process to its policy exclusion, raises troubling questions about accountability and the administration’s stewardship of public assets.

PHILIPSBURG:--- During the Central Committee meeting on Friday, pointed questions were raised regarding the attendance and responsiveness of the Minister of VROMI (Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure) Patrice Gumbs Jr. The discussion, initiated by Member of Parliament Darryl York, centered on allegations of selective attendance at meetings and a significant backlog of unanswered inquiries, sparking a direct exchange on the floor.

Concerns Raised by MP York

MP York voiced strong concerns, suggesting that the Minister of VROMI, with the coalition's backing, appears to attend only meetings deemed important to them. He highlighted those crucial meetings on topics like infrastructure and housing, some requested as far back as April of the previous year, have not materialized.

York stated that numerous questions submitted to the minister have remained outstanding for over a year. He called for accountability, not just from the Minister, but also from the Presidium and the governing coalition. "Have an urgent coalition meeting, sit with your Ministers and let them know that, hey, we can't operate properly because of the lack of response or the lack of attending to important meetings of Parliament," he urged.

He further commented on what he perceived as procedural inconsistencies, noting that some coalition members receive "uninterrupted length of speaking time," while others feel rushed. This, he implied, contributes to a challenging environment for holding ministers accountable.

The Minister's Rebuttal

In response, the Minister addressed the allegations directly. Acknowledging the discussion, the Minister clarified the status of the missed meetings, stating that only one meeting on the housing policy is currently pending.

The Minister explained the timeline for the housing policy meeting request. The initial request in April of the prior year was met with the response that the policy was still under development. A subsequent update was requested in the summer, but the policy was still not finalized. The Ministry announced the policy's completion on December 10th. A meeting was then requested for that same week.

The Minister emphasized a key distinction: "Policies being ready don’t always equate that a presentation and the availability of the ministry is equated to that policy being finalized." He contested the image of him consistently missing meetings, framing it as a single pending meeting on one topic. He did, however, acknowledge that there were outstanding questions from several MPs.

A Counterargument with Facts

Following the Minister's response, MP York took the floor again to counter the claims, presenting specific data to support his initial statements. He asserted that parliamentary submissions, including letters and meeting requests, are officially registered with identification numbers (IS numbers).

Reading from a list, MP York cited numerous IS numbers representing, in his words, "all meetings and letters that have been sent to the minister over the past year that has not been replied to or adhered to or even respected." The list included IS 1302, 415, 853, 1057, 1319, 373, 276, 277, 187, 1298, 406, and 405.

He directly challenged the Minister's claim of only one pending meeting request. He specified that IS 1057 was a meeting request about housing, IS 406 concerned infrastructure and traffic congestion, and IS 405 was about flood management. "The facts contradict the statement that the minister made so thoroughly," York declared.

Furthermore, he questioned the Minister's reasoning for delaying the housing policy discussion. "If a policy is far enough to disclose it on the Tribune and in the Herald," he argued, "then it's far enough for you to come to Parliament and explain it to the people."

The exchange highlights a significant point of friction within Parliament, focusing on ministerial accountability, transparency, and the operational procedures that ensure the legislative body can effectively carry out its oversight duties. As the matter stands, the documented requests presented by MP York contrast with the Minister's account, leaving critical questions about communication and responsiveness unresolved.