PHILIPSBURG:--- The Council of Appeal in Civil Service Matters of Sint Maarten has affirmed the dismissal of the former director of the Bureau Telecommunicatie en Post (BTP). The decision, issued on March 4, 2026, confirms that the director (Anthony Carty) was justifiably terminated for serious dereliction of duty, specifically for failing to report secondary employment and engaging in conflicting commercial activities.
The case centered on the director's involvement with private companies that had financial ties to BTP, the government organization he led. The director, appointed in November 2012 after serving in an acting capacity since April 2010, was a co-founder and shareholder in a company that, in turn, held a 35% stake in a second company. This second company, referred to as 'bedrijf 3' in the court documents, secured a contract with BTP in March 2012 to manage the country's number plan for an annual fee of USD 90,000.
According to the verdict, the director, in his official capacity, signed two extensions of this contract in 2015 and 2018.
The Council of Appeal found that the director violated articles 52, 53, and 54 of the Landsverordening materieel ambtenarenrecht (Lma), the national ordinance on civil service law. The court determined that the director committed serious misconduct by not formally disclosing his shareholdings and secondary activities as required by law. The director's claim of having verbally informed the Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication (TEATT) was not substantiated with evidence and did not absolve him of his legal obligation to provide written notification.
The court highlighted the direct conflict of interest, noting that the director was involved in renewing contracts that financially benefited a company in which he held an indirect financial interest. The court stated that the director should not have participated in the conclusion and extension of these agreements, which involved payments from the government to the private entity.
The director’s assertion that he had distanced himself from the company in 2014 was deemed not credible by the court, as the official transfer of his shares did not occur until mid-2020. The verdict also referenced related criminal court rulings against the director's business partner, which established that dividends were paid out from the company starting in 2014. The Council of Appeal found it implausible that the director, holding an identical stake, would not have also received such payments.
Ultimately, the Council concluded that the director's actions were incompatible with his high-ranking public position and that he failed to act as a proper civil servant. The court ruled that the disciplinary sanction of dismissal was a proportional response to the gravity of the misconduct. The appeal was denied, and the original court's decision to uphold the dismissal was confirmed.
Click here for the official verdict.
