Vote buying trial from 2010 finally nears its conclusion

GREAT BAY – With the appeal hearing against the last two defendants the 2010 vote buying case is nearing its conclusion, but election fraud remains alive and kicking in St. Maarten. while the legal battle of the defendants in the 2010-case is not over yet, the prosecutor’s office has two other cases on its plate: the accusations against United St. Maarten party MP Silvio Matser for vote buying in the 2014 elections and an investigation into similar practices during the elections in September of last year, whereby USp-MP Chanel Brownbill has been heard as a witness.

Central question: agreement or no agreement?

The last two suspects from the 2010-case, Robert Charles Henry James and Roy Heyliger, were in court for a video-conference hearing with the appeals court in Curacao yesterday morning. Last week, the court handled the cases of co-defendants Ashwin Martina and Cernick Carolina. In all cases the prosecutor’s demand is similar: a 3 month conditional prison sentence, 2 years of probation and 150 hours of community service. The court will render all verdicts on May 3.

The solicitor-general focused in his demand on the core-argument the Court in First Instance used in its ruling of September 14, 2016 that resulted in the acquittal of all defendants: there was no agreement about the way the defendants had to vote and there were no conditions set by the United People’s party for receiving money. The prosecution appealed these verdicts.

“What is lacking is a handshake,” the solicitor-general summed up the argument of the lower court. “The Court in first Instance has incorrectly considered that it cannot be established that there was an agreement or that payment was subject to any condition.”

While the lower court found no proof for bribery, the solicitor-general said yesterday that a tacit agreement is also an agreement. “The dossier shows that there was a tacit agreement.”

Citing from the civil code, the solicitor-general said that the dossier meets the requirements of the so-called Haviltex-standard. The suspects talked at the police station about the money the UP distributed in exchange for votes, they went to the party office in Pointe Blanche, and in the end they received money.

Roy Heyliger told investigators that he had attempted to convince the suspects to vote for the UP. The suspects demanded between $650 and $700 for their vote. After the party had checked that the four were eligible to vote, James collected the next day four envelopes, each containing $300. The rest would follow after the elections. “The suspects had to do something in return for rest of the money.”

Statements in the dossier show that it is common for political parties to distribute money and goods in exchange for votes, the solicitor-general noted. “Those who sell their vote and the representatives of the parties that buy them are committing a crime. Punishing these suspects must have a preventive effect.”

The penalty for vote buying increased in the new criminal code from 6 months to 2 years. “This shows how the community views the criminality of vote buying.”

The crime warrants an unconditional prison sentence, the solicitor-general said, but given the time that has elapsed since 2010, he did not demand this; instead he demanded a conditional prison sentence and community service.

For this reason, the prosecution also did not demand to take away the voting rights from Roy Heyliger who is an uncle of UP party leader Theo Heyliger. The new criminal code states that such a measure is only possible in combination with a prison sentence of at least one year.

James’ attorney Geert Hatzmann told the court that it is clear what happened back in 2010. “My client does not deserve a royal decoration,” he said. Hatzmann agreed however with the Court in First Instance that there was no agreement between the UP and his client.

“Did my client feel free to act differently than voting for the UP? Yes, he did. There was no guarantee, so there was no agreement. It cannot be said that he has been bribed, or that an attempt was made to bribe him.”

Hatzmann acknowledged that his client had gone to the UP party office to pick up some money, but that he had voted for the National Alliance. “Is it then possible for the UP to go to court? No, because there was no agreement.”

Eldon ‘Peppi’ Sulvaran, the attorney for Roy Heyliger, spoke of a “political trial” and claimed that witnesses had been trained and influenced by the public prosecutor. The solicitor-general denied this, saying that there is insufficient evidence in the dossier to honor that argument.

Sulvaran also referred to the situation in the Netherlands where parties shanghai preferential votes with mandates from voters who do not go to the polls themselves, but the solicitor-general failed to see the link between this practice and the case at hand.

That, according to a police report, the suspects had not done anything punishable, as Sulvaran said, did not fly with the solicitor-general either: “It is not up to the police to draw conclusions.”

At the beginning of the session, the court asked Robert James whether he had any regrets. Initially, James said that he regretted that it had all taken so long and that he had to be in court again. But after some prodding from the judges in Curacao he said: “I told my children: I am sorry for what your father has done. Make sure that you never do anything like this.”

At the end of the court hearing, James pleaded with the court for leniency. He works as a VKS-officer at the central dispatch room of the police force. “I have a promotion to sergeant coming, but everything depends on the outcome of this case.”