During a radio interview with Lloyd Richardson last Sunday the Minister of Justice stated that " he had verbally instructed his staff to accept applications from persons who had been on the island before December 31, 2001 for people who were somehow still living on the island illegally Minister Duncan said it made no sense to tell those persons they were qualified, but that they could not apply or they were late. What Minister Duncan did not realize is that those very people had the opportunity last year to apply if they were interested in legalizing themselves. Minister Duncan also made the same statements to SMN News when we interviewed him on Sunday.
On Wednesday during the Council of Ministers press briefing the public was again surprised with another change in the BTA process. The minister said that another of his "oral policies" pertaining to the BTA process was to allow persons to be able to testify about the identity of others." In the past this was not allowed he said. Minister Duncan made clear oral testimony is acceptable in the Dutch law. Minister Duncan did not think these changes needed to be put in writing, you see he is now a Minister and he does not need the approval of the council to say what other people must do in processing the BTA applications.
The Minister did not indicate who he had given these instructions to, or when the instructions were given. Neither did he say if the instructions changes by the day.
Another matter was just how many of these oral instructions were given as on two separate occasions he revealed new "oral instructions". As it is customary that policies are intended for the general public the question then arises how are those for whom these instructions were intended supposed to know that these important changes had taken place? By allowing persons who had been here before December 31, 2001 (category I) to apply for the first time, the Minister had opened a second grace period, which a judge said last week was not legal. Minister Duncan even had the audacity to say people don't need the BTA to apply for residency for St. Maarten. He said if people had money to show they can sustain themselves on the island then they can apply for a residency permit. What the Minister has to tell us, why he reopened or granted another extension for the BTA 11.
It must be made clear that the BTA 11 process was only for renewals only. By allowing people to suddenly apply for the first time therefore creates a new grace period. These people were on the island illegally because they had failed to apply as category I before December 31, 2009 when the BTA process under then Minister of Justice Magaly Jacoba had ended.
However, they were suddenly granted the opportunity to apply for the first time and at what cost will be revealed in the ongoing investigation. What we know so far is four people are behind bars, one of them a civil servant who worked with four Lt. Governors. The irresponsible behaviour of the Minister has created an opportunity for more corruption while several families are suffering including that of a 92-year old woman whose daughter is in police custody.
The oral instruction given by Minister Duncan means that two processes were running at the same time; people were extending their BTA permits, and a new process had been opened for those who had never had a BTA permit to apply for one. If category I individuals were granted a new grace period, what was the logic of not granting category II (those arrived between 2002 to 2005) the same opportunity? In other words, open a new grace period for both categories. Now the minister may say he did not open a new grace period, but what else can it be if he gave oral instructions to allow people who were living on the island without a residence permit that is illegal, to apply for the first time in December 2010? Several person who are known for filing documents said they were filling up forms for people who arrived on St. Maarten in 2010 and these forms were accepted.
The Minister's revelation that he had given instructions to allow persons to be able to testify about the "identity of others" was a real shocker to those who heard it for the first time. Why should someone have to testify about another person's identity? In applying for a residence permit one must submit a passport which fixes your identity. As a matter of fact, without a passport a resident permit cannot be obtained! Why someone should have to attest to your identity makes no sense. That is what your passport if for yet the Minister said he did not change anything in the BTA process therefore there is no need for a policy or Ministerial decree. Insulting ones intelligence at best as can be but not the smart thing to do Minister.
If he meant that one could testify about another person's presence on the island, then that opens another can of worms. In the past this was disallowed because of widespread abuse. People were paying others to go with them to the notary's office to give sworn statements to the effect that they knew that someone had been living on the island for many years, when often these were blatant lies. Many persons paid to say they were concubines of others just like many men adopting children that are not theirs all of which has been abolished to some extent.
But most important, to implement this program of taking people's testimony a whole procedure must be put in place. First of all who is allowed to take this testimony? Can a husband testify on behalf of a wife, or parents on behalf of children? What must the person testifying present in order to confirm their bonafides? Must this testimony be in writing? and most importantly what measures are put in place to prevent abuse of this procedure as had happened in the past? This requires a carefully written procedure which can easily be 10 to 20 pages long. A simple verbal instruction just will not do as there are too many factors to be taken into account.
Then there is the matter of the many thousands of people who were told by the BTA staff they could apply for a BTA permit even if they arrived after 2005. Their applications were accepted and they were sent to the labour office where they paid their US$900 to have a working permit processed. The labour office apparently also believed that these people who arrives after 2005 were eligible and took their money. The BTA staff claim they were instructed to accept applications from people who came after 2005. The minster claims he did not change the date and therein lays the confusion caused of working by oral decrees. They are so easy to be denied. By not having a written policy in place, it left the door open for massive fraud and confusion. No one, including the BTA staff knew exactly what was going on. Now those people who came after 2005 and filed BTA request and paid their US$900 are left out in the cold. Thousands have been duped by the BTA staff that was operating without a policy manual and as a result, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid to various consultants and advisors and the labour office, all for nought.
But more shocking is the fact that many persons some of who have lived on the island for over 10 years are now illegal because their working permits were denied for one reason or another by the labour department. Several of these persons were referred to the BTA section to apply for their permits because many of them fall under the category 1 which would qualify them for a 3 year permit. The only baloney with these applications is that the BTA team who are now in shackles behind bars had nothing in writing to accept new application forms. Has the Minister's oral policy solve the calamity of the labour and residency permit is still left to be seen.
A clear written policy would have prevented the international disaster that St. Maarten now faces, and the opportunity to commit crimes.