NETHERLANDS: ---  Two subsidiaries of the Dutch construction giant VolkerWessels are set to appear before a judge next week regarding a major corruption scandal in Sint Maarten. The companies are accused of paying nearly €1 million in bribes to a government minister to secure a contract for a bridge construction project.

The Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM) alleges the bribery occurred around 2013. The project involved building a causeway connecting the airport in Sint Maarten to the French side of the island. According to reports, Volker Construction International submitted two bids for the project. Initially, the proposal was rejected for being too expensive and aesthetically displeasing. However, months later, the government reversed its decision and accepted the same bid, sparking rumors and eventually triggering an investigation in 2015.

Key Witness Breaks the Case Open

In a rare move in a financial fraud case, the prosecution relies heavily on testimony from a "crown witness." While such witnesses are typically associated with organized crime or liquidation cases, this individual plays a pivotal role in the proceedings.

The witness was reportedly a central suspect who allegedly directed the payments to the minister. Instead of facing the charges alone, they chose to cooperate with authorities, providing detailed accounts of how the payments were structured and executed. This testimony accelerated the investigation, enabling the Justice Department to build a comprehensive case against the construction firm’s subsidiaries.

High-Profile Convictions and Potential Penalties

The recipient of the alleged bribes, former Sint Maarten minister Theo Heiliger, has already faced justice. In 2020, he was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison for his role in the scheme.

Now, the legal focus shifts to the corporate entities involved. The trial, taking place in Zwolle, Netherlands, puts the subsidiaries and a former administrator in the spotlight. While companies cannot be jailed, they face significant financial repercussions. The prosecution is pursuing a separate procedure to confiscate the profits made from the bridge project. Meanwhile, the former administrator involved faces a potential prison sentence, with the maximum penalty for bribery of an official set at 6 years.

Company Denies Wrongdoing

Despite the minister's prior conviction and the state witness's detailed testimony, VolkerWessels maintains its innocence. When approached for comment regarding the impact on the parent company, representatives declined to elaborate but stated they do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the Public Prosecution Service based on the facts presented.

The court hearings are scheduled for the coming weeks, with a ruling expected by February.

For the original news article, click the link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx8IJ-MW3xc

 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.