Minister says existing permissions cover current activities and disputes claims of a ten-month delay, identifying a six-month procurement setback instead.
PHILIPSBURG:--- Minister of Justice Nathalie Tackling has confirmed that the building permit for Sint Maarten’s new prison has not yet been signed off, and that advice from the Fire Department is still outstanding.
Responding to questions in Parliament, Tackling referred to clarification from the Minister of VROMI and said the project still has the permissions needed for the work currently underway.
Her explanation distinguishes between authorization for ongoing work and the outstanding building permit.
Outstanding Approvals Remain Part of the Project
Tackling said the construction company requires four permits, three of which it has already obtained.
She identified the remaining permit as the hindrance permit and said it is being sought. According to the minister, that permit is not required until the second construction phase.
Separately, she acknowledged that the building permit remains unsigned while awaiting Fire Department advice.
The responses did not identify all three permits already obtained or explain how the building permit relates to the four-permit count. They also did not provide a date for the outstanding Fire Department advice or final building permit approval.
Minister Disputes Ten-Month Delay Claim
Tackling also challenged a parliamentary question suggesting that the prison project had been delayed by ten months.
“The delay was six months, not 10,” she said.
According to the minister, the six-month setback occurred during the procurement process in 2025, when the construction contract had to be retendered.
She described it as an unplanned delay that affected the wider project programme and said its causes and consequences had been consistently communicated since mid-2025.
Procurement Delay and Mobilization Are Different Issues
Tackling said additional time required for contractor mobilization in early 2026 must be treated separately from the procurement setback.
The mobilization period, she explained, remained within the time and contingency allowances built into the programme and therefore did not further extend the overall project timeframe.
She rejected the suggestion that the six-month delay was itself merely a buffer period.
“The six months was a real unplanned delay. The contingency is a separate allowance,” she said.
For a project of this scale, she explained, contingency provides room to absorb foreseeable risks and variations. In this instance, it accommodated the additional mobilization time.
Completion date not Specified in these Responses
Tackling characterized the presentation of a ten-month delay as “disingenuous,” arguing that the revised timeline had been communicated for more than a year.
However, these responses did not specify a completion date or provide a detailed construction schedule against which progress could be assessed.
The minister’s position is that current activities can proceed under existing permissions, while the building permit and hindrance permit remain outstanding.