Vinaora Nivo Slider 3.xVinaora Nivo Slider 3.xVinaora Nivo Slider 3.x
Vinaora Nivo Slider 3.x

Rolando Brison’s Bribery Case: A Test of Prosecutorial Overreach or a Chance to Clear His Name.

rolandobrison29112023PHILIPSBURG:--- For weeks, SMN News has been closely following the unfolding bribery case against former Member of Parliament (MP) Rolando Brison, a case that has now reached a critical juncture. Brison, the outspoken former leader of the United People’s (UP) Party, was arrested in March 2023 as part of the “Lissabon” investigation, detained for less than 24 hours, and released—yet he remains a suspect. Since then, the Public Prosecutor’s Office (OM) has questioned him only once, leaving the case in a frustrating limbo. After months of Brison pushing the OM to either drop the charges or bring the matter to court, it appears the latter path has been chosen. This development offers Brison a long-awaited opportunity to present evidence that he insists will dismantle the prosecution’s narrative and clear his name.

What makes this case particularly compelling is not just the accusations leveled against Brison but the eerie parallels it shares with the high-profile case of Richard de Mos, a Dutch MP in The Hague who faced similar bribery allegations—only to be fully acquitted. SMN News has conducted its own investigation into the facts, uncovering striking similarities that raise serious questions about the OM’s handling of political cases, a track record marked by prolonged delays, frequent acquittals, and a seeming inability to secure convictions against public figures.

A Prosecutor’s History of Stumbling in Political Cases

Much like its counterparts in the Netherlands, the OM in Sint Maarten has a well-documented history of struggling with politically charged prosecutions. High-profile cases against MPs and public officials often stretch on for years, bogged down by procedural delays and insufficient evidence, only to collapse in court. In the Netherlands, Richard de Mos’s case is a prime example. Accused in 2019 of bribery and corruption for allegedly trading political favors for party donations, de Mos endured a grueling legal battle that lasted until 2023, when a district court acquitted him and his co-defendants. The court lambasted the prosecution’s case as speculative, lacking concrete proof of malicious intent. Even on appeal in 2024, the OM’s push for suspended jail time and fines fell apart, with the higher court affirming that legitimate, documented transactions—such as dinners with businessmen or campaign contributions—do not inherently constitute bribes.

Brison’s case mirrors this pattern. Arrested in 2023 on suspicion of bribery and abuse of office, he was released swiftly, suggesting the OM lacked immediate grounds to hold him. Since then, the investigation has crawled along, with Brison facing just one additional questioning session. This sluggish pace aligns with the OM’s tendency to let political cases languish, perhaps hoping suspects will settle to avoid prolonged scrutiny. Yet Brison has defied this playbook, refusing to let the case drag on in silence or accept a plea that implies guilt. Instead, he’s demanded a courtroom showdown—a bold move that could expose the prosecution’s weaknesses and echo de Mos’s vindication.

The SXM Festival and Gehani: Bribery or Socializing?

At the heart of the OM’s case against Brison is his attendance at the SXM Festival alongside Gehani, a St. Kitts businessman. The prosecution suggests that Brison enjoying drinks and festival perks with Gehani amounts to a bribe. But is it? SMN News dug into the details, and the facts paint a different picture. Brison’s interactions with Gehani were not clandestine; they were open social engagements—hardly the stuff of backroom deals. In de Mos’s case, the Dutch courts grappled with a similar question: does an MP dining with a businessman, absent evidence of a quid pro quo, constitute corruption? The Hague’s judges resoundingly said no, ruling that such interactions, when transparent and lacking illicit intent, are not criminal.

Brison’s situation begs the same scrutiny. He has welcomed a judge’s review of these “hard facts,” confident that a court will see no evidence of bribery in what appears to be routine socializing. The OM’s insistence on framing this as corruption risks overreach, a misstep that could unravel in court just as it did for de Mos.

Robbie dos Santos and the Banking Law Puzzle

Another perplexing element of the case is the OM’s claim that Brison championed banking law reforms to benefit Robbie dos Santos, a businessman convicted of financial crimes tied to his lottery operations. The prosecution alleges Brison’s legislative efforts were a favor to help dos Santos secure a bank account. Yet SMN News reviewed the draft legislation Brison proposed, and the evidence contradicts this narrative. The law explicitly states that individuals with financial crime convictions—like dos Santos, who faced penalties for SMS-based lottery sales but no jail time—are ineligible for basic bank accounts. How, then, could Brison’s work have benefited dos Santos when it explicitly excludes him?

This discrepancy is glaring. A judge poring over the legislation could quickly see that the OM’s theory doesn’t hold water. Brison’s transparency in drafting and promoting this law further undermines the prosecution’s case, offering yet another piece of hard evidence that could clear his name.

Cryptocurrency Advocacy: Transparency, Not Trickery

Brison’s public push for cryptocurrency regulation adds another layer to this saga. Far from engaging in shady, under-the-table deals, Brison has been vocal and upfront about his belief in crypto’s potential for Sint Maarten. He openly stated that he would be converting a part of his own salary into bitcoin and has consistently advocated for laws to regulate the industry—hardly the actions of someone seeking to enable criminal activity. If Brison aimed to use crypto for illicit purposes, why would he champion oversight that makes such schemes harder to execute? And if he was also so open about his personal use of crypto, is it not logical that Brison would trade this cryptocurrency with many other local traders and internationally? The OM seems to have added up all of his crypto savings from his own hard-earned salary, despite it clearly coming from there, and adding up to a nice sound number $30,000. This is equivalent to Brison just saving 10% of his salary into crypto over the period of the investigation, just as he said publicly he would be doing. Again, a judge now has the chance to see the wallet transactions, his own withdrawals from his salary to crypto, to counter any such accusations.

His transaction records, openly shared, stand as more concrete evidence for a judge to review. This transparency contrasts sharply with the OM’s insinuations, aligning Brison’s case with de Mos’s, where documented, legitimate activities were misconstrued as corrupt until proven otherwise in court.

Brison’s Strategy: Fight, Don’t Flee

Unlike many defendants in political cases who stonewall, refuse to cooperate, or drag proceedings out for years in hopes of lighter sentences, Brison has taken a different tack. He could have settled, admitting wrongdoing to end the ordeal, but he’s chosen to fight. In both his interrogations, SMN News understood that after providing all the answers to the questions and proof, his last statement to them was to either stop this charade or take him to court. By insisting the OM bring the case to court, he’s betting on a judge’s ability to sift through the evidence and see the truth. This approach sets him apart from the norm in Sint Maarten and the Netherlands, where prolonged legal battles often favor the prosecution’s pressure tactics over substantive justice.

While Brison offered all the facts—on the festival, the banking law, and Brison’s crypto stance—to the OM, yet the prosecution has pressed forward, leaving it to a judge to decide. For Brison, this is the chance he’s been waiting for: a public airing of the facts to dismantle the OM’s narrative and restore his reputation.

A Legacy at Stake

No one disputes Rolando Brison’s work ethic. Love or loathe him, he’s widely regarded as one of Sint Maarten’s most dedicated parliamentarians. His 2023 arrest undeniably damaged his political career, contributing to his failure to win re-election. With this case heading to court, Brison’s refusal to settle or let it fester could be his path to redemption. If the parallels with Richard de Mos hold, and a judge rules in his favor, Brison may clear his name and expose the OM’s pattern of mishandling political cases—a legacy worth fighting for.

As this case unfolds, one thing is certain: the courtroom will be the crucible where hard evidence meets prosecutorial claims, and Sint Maarten will be watching.


Government has to take note of US Tariff Effect

Dear Editor,

St. Maarten, our little paradise in the Caribbean, is no stranger to weathering storms—both literal and figurative. However, the latest challenge blowing in from the north isn’t a hurricane; it’s a wave of tariffs announced by U.S. President Donald Trump. With a baseline 10% tariff on all imports to the U.S. and steeper reciprocal tariffs on certain countries—some as high as 50%—global trade is reeling, and St. Maarten could feel the ripple effects in a big way. As an island that imports virtually everything from food to furniture, mainly via the U.S., even if the goods originate elsewhere, these tariffs could mean one thing for the average consumer: higher prices. All eyes are now on the Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport, and Telecommunication (TEATT) and her Senior Policy Advisor to steer us through this mess.

Let’s break it down. St. Maarten doesn’t produce much locally—our economy thrives on tourism and what we bring in from abroad. A huge chunk of those imports, whether it’s a bag of rice, a flat-screen TV, or a case of Heineken, comes through U.S. ports or from American suppliers, even if the stuff was made in China, Europe, or Latin America. Trump’s tariffs don’t just hit goods made in the U.S.; they jack up the cost of anything shipped to or through the States. That means the price tag on everyday items could climb from 20% to 40% in some cases, depending on how businesses pass on the costs here.

Take a simple example: a gallon of milk. Maybe it’s sourced from a U.S. distributor, even if the cows are in Wisconsin or elsewhere. That 10% baseline tariff—or higher if it’s tangled up in reciprocal duties—gets tacked onto the wholesale price. Shipping companies, already squeezed by global trade tensions, might hike their rates too. By the time milk hits the shelves at Carrefour or Cost-U-Less, you’re paying $6 or $7 instead of $5. Now multiply that across your grocery list—chicken, cereal, diapers—and suddenly, your weekly shop is $50 more expensive. For a family already stretched thin, that’s a punch to the gut.

Or think about bigger purchases. Say you’re eyeing a new sofa from a U.S.-based retailer like Ashley Furniture. The price was already steep because of shipping to an island, but now add a tariff bump—it could be 20% or more if the materials came from a “high-tariff” country like China (which faces a 34% levy). That $1,000 sofa might now cost you $1,200 or $1,400. The math gets even uglier for small businesses importing goods to sell—think electronics, clothing, or construction materials. They’ll either eat the cost (unlikely) or pass it on to you, the consumer.

So, what’s at stake? A lot. If prices soar unchecked, it’s not just about tighter budgets—it’s about tourism taking a hit too. Visitors might balk at $15 burgers or $200 hotel sundries, and that’s a problem for an island where every dollar counts. But here’s where hope comes in: the Minister of TEATT and her Senior Policy Advisor, a duo with a track record of tackling crises, are in the hot seat to figure this out.

The Minister, Grisha Heyliger-Marten—yes, wife of Theo Heyliger—brings a steady hand and a deep understanding of St. Maarten’s economic pulse. Her Senior Policy Advisor, Rolando Brison, says what you will about his past is undeniably one of the sharpest minds in our political landscape. This isn’t their first rodeo. Brison, in particular, was a key player in navigating St. Maarten through the COVID-19 pandemic, helping keep our economy afloat when the world shut down. Together, they’ve got the experience and brainpower to make this tariff turmoil manageable.

What can they do? For starters, they could push for creative trade workarounds—maybe lean harder on direct imports from Europe or the Caribbean to bypass U.S. ports. They might negotiate with local businesses to absorb some costs or lobby for subsidies to cushion the blow. And with their political savvy, they could even press the Dutch government for support, given St. Maarten’s status in the Kingdom. It’s a tall order, but if anyone can pull it off, it's these two. Their past political or otherwise differences seem irrelevant now; this is about results.

SMN News says let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. Sure, prices might spike 20% to 40% if nothing’s done, but Heyliger-Marten and Brison have a chance to prove they can keep St. Maarten steady. The timing’s almost poetic: two heavyweights, once at odds, are now united by necessity. If they put their heads together, we might just come out of this better than expected. For now, stock up on that milk—and watch TEATT—the island’s counting on them.

 

 

Impact of U.S. Tariffs on the Stock Market.

The implementation of U.S. tariffs has once again thrust global trade policy into the spotlight, sparking reactions across markets. Recent tariff announcements from the U.S. government have raised concerns among investors, leading to volatility in the stock market. Analysts closely monitor the situation to assess the ripple effects across industries, with certain sectors bearing the brunt of this trade strategy.

Pressure on the Manufacturing and Technology Sectors

The tariff measures have notably affected the manufacturing sector, particularly companies involved in steel, aluminum, and machinery production. Additional costs related to imported raw materials have left these businesses grappling with higher expenses. Shares of major manufacturers such as Caterpillar and 3M saw dips as investors anticipated weaker profit margins due to increased input costs.

Similarly, the tech sector has struggled as tariffs disproportionately target electronics and semiconductor components sourced from overseas. Companies like Apple could face price increases on key products, potentially dampening consumer demand. The chipmaker Nvidia witnessed its stock tumble last week, as markets braced for a potential disruption in component supply chains.

Retailers and Consumers in the Crossfire

Retailers dependent on imports have also faced mounting pressures. With tariffs raising the prices of goods such as clothing, electronics, and household items, these companies are balancing thin profit margins with the risk of alienating price-conscious consumers. Shares of large retailers like Walmart and Target traded lower, with analysts predicting higher store prices ahead of the holiday shopping season.

This concern extends to consumer sentiment. Rising costs, driven by tariffs, could reduce discretionary spending, indirectly impacting market performance in sectors like travel, entertainment, and dining.

Global Trade Tensions Elevate Uncertainty

Beyond individual companies, the broader implications of U.S. tariff policies reflect heightened uncertainty in global trade. Experts note that retaliatory tariffs by foreign nations risk creating further instability. China's imposition of duties on American agricultural goods has already hurt U.S. farmers, with mutual tariffs threatening export-dependent industries. The potential escalation of the trade dispute has left investors wary of the long-term market correction.

Historically, trade conflicts have tested market resilience. For example, under the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, aggressive trade barriers contributed to the prolonged economic struggles of the Great Depression. While today’s global economy is far more interdependent, the historical context is a cautionary tale for prolonged trade tensions.

Expert Opinions and a Look Ahead

Economic experts remain divided on the long-term benefits of tariffs for domestic industries. Some argue they offer protection for local manufacturing, while others warn they may stifle innovation and discourage foreign investment. Jack Larsen, a senior investment strategist at Brightwave Capital, noted, "Tariff policies introduce an element of unpredictability, which markets tend to avoid. The short-term effects may include sharp sell-offs, but the long-term damage depends on whether these measures escalate into a full-fledged trade war."

Investor sentiment appears cautious but not panicked, with many adopting a wait-and-see approach. Key market indicators like the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average have experienced fluctuations but have avoided major collapses. However, analysts suggest sustained tariff measures could lead to prolonged market corrections, especially if paired with weakened global economic growth.

The Bottom Line

The U.S. tariffs have injected fresh volatility into stock markets, significantly damaging manufacturing, technology, and retail sectors. Investors are adjusting portfolios as the fallout from trade tensions becomes clearer. Whether these changes represent a short-term disruption or a long-term redirection of global trade policy remains uncertain. For now, the stock market’s response appears as much a reflection of fear over the unknown as it does of economic fundamentals. Tensions will likely remain until the US President Donald Trump administration provides more explicit guidance on their vision for international trade.

Caribbean Faces Uncertain Future Amid US-Imposed Tariffs.

~St. Maarten Grapples with Rising Costs and Economic Pressure~

PHILIPSBURG:--- The Caribbean’s economies are grappling with wave after wave of economic challenges as new US tariffs reshape the region’s financial landscape. Among the most severely impacted is St. Maarten, where the ripple effects of a 10% tariff on imports from the United States have begun to weigh heavily on consumers and businesses alike.

Introduced by US President Donald Trump, these sweeping tariffs are part of high-stakes protectionist policies targeting a wide range of nations. While St. Maarten and other Caribbean nations received a relatively low tariff rate compared to countries like Guyana, where tariffs reached an eye-widening 38%, the implications are deeply felt given the islands’ heavy reliance on US imports.

Rising Costs and Food Price Inflation

Economists estimate that close to 75% of the costs inflicted by these tariffs are passed directly onto consumers. The result? A noticeable spike in food and commodity prices in supermarkets across St. Maarten and other islands. With the US serving as the main supplier for many essential goods, residents are now forced to stretch household budgets as incomes remain stagnant.

Much of the food consumed in St. Maarten is imported, with many products originating in or passing through the United States. This dependency means higher import costs quickly filter down to the individual level, impacting everything from basic groceries to luxury goods. Inflationary pressures across the US further compound the problem, exporting economic instability into St. Maarten’s already fragile markets.

Tourism Threatened to Decline

Beyond trade dynamics, the region faces significant risks to its vital tourism industry. Analysts warn that the US tariffs could trigger a global trade war, weakening economies worldwide and potentially triggering a recession. Such a scenario may cause American tourists, who represent a large share of visitors to St. Maarten, to tighten their travel budgets. There is even concern that economic instability in Europe could limit arrivals from Dutch and other European tourists, amplifying the financial toll on the local economy.

Tourism is the lifeblood of St. Maarten, contributing heavily to local employment and revenue generation. A decline in visitors would not only harm businesses directly tied to tourism but also have a cascading effect on interconnected sectors such as retail, hospitality, and transportation.

Lessons From Past Economic Shocks

This economic turbulence is reminiscent of earlier crises when global economic policies affected the Caribbean disproportionately. Historical instances such as the collapse of the banana and rum trades across the region highlight the vulnerability of small island economies to external shocks.

St. Maarten, like its neighbors, has limited tools to mitigate the damage. Attempts to shift trade patterns or seek new partners face challenges tied to infrastructure, shipping costs, and geopolitical limitations. Alternative markets, such as Latin America or Africa, require significant coordination among CARICOM nations, which, according to economists, has been slow to move beyond rhetoric to action.

Calls for Regional Reform

Many experts argue that these tariffs underscore the urgency for regional reform and economic diversification. St. Maarten and the wider Caribbean need to invest in long-term strategies that strengthen local supply chains, boost food security, and reduce dependency on foreign markets like the US.

Collaboration within CARICOM is also being called for as leaders aim to collectively address trade challenges and advocate for reforms to protect vulnerable economies at a global level. This includes exploring intra-regional trade agreements and bolstering relationships with lesser-tapped markets to offset reliance on Western countries.

Fragile Stability Faces Further Risks

Whether through trade restrictions or tourism worries, St. Maarten’s economy faces significant risks in the months ahead. Residents and businesses are already bracing for further increases in the cost of living. Governments across the Caribbean are seeking solutions to this new economic reality, but without a coordinated and proactive approach, the region faces a long, difficult road to recovery.

As the global economic landscape grows more volatile, St. Maarten and other island nations must adapt quickly or risk being left behind in a world increasingly defined by protectionism and trade wars.

Continuation urgent Public meeting of Parliament for deliberations regarding the delayed publication of building permits and ensuring legal compliance and procedural clarity.

PHILIPSBURG:--- The House of Parliament will sit in a Public meeting on April 7, 2025.

The Public meeting which was adjourned on March 12, 2025, will be reconvened on Monday at 14.00 hrs. in the Legislative Hall at Wilhelminastraat #1 in Philipsburg. The Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment, and Infrastructure will be in attendance.

The agenda point is:

Deliberations with the Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment, and Infrastructure regarding the delayed publication of building permits and ensuring legal compliance and procedural clarity (IS/654/2024-2025 dated February 24, 2025)

The meeting will resume with the Minister providing answers to the questions posed by Members of Parliament in the first round.

Members of the public are invited to the House of Parliament to attend parliamentary deliberations. All persons visiting the House of Parliament must adhere to the house rules.

The House of Parliament is located across from the Court House in Philipsburg.

The parliamentary sessions will be carried live on TV 15, Soualiga Headlines, via SXM GOV radio FM 107.9, via Pearl Radio FM 98.1, the audio via the internet www.youtube.com/c/SintMaartenParliament and www.pearlfmradio.sx


Subcategories

Vinaora Nivo Slider 3.x

RADIO FROM VOICEOFTHECARIBBEAN.NET

Vinaora Nivo Slider 3.xVinaora Nivo Slider 3.x
Vinaora Nivo Slider 3.x
Vinaora Nivo Slider 3.x
Vinaora Nivo Slider 3.x
Vinaora Nivo Slider 3.x