Constitutional expert Hoogers: “Marlin acted correctly”
THE HAGUE – What happened on Friday in the Kingdom Council of Ministers to remove St. Maarten’s Prime Minister William Marlin from office is “at least close to the limits of what is legally admissible in our democracy,” says professor Gerhard Hoogers, a senior lecturer constitutional law at the National University Groningen and an honorary professor in comparative constitutional law at the Carl von Ossietzky-University of Oldenburg.
Under enormous pressure from the Netherlands, Prime Minister Marlin decided on Friday immediately after the decision to step down, John Samson reports on Caribisch Netwerk.
The parliament passed not once, but twice a motion of no confidence against him so that he would immediately step aside for a politician who does agree with the Dutch conditions for the recovery fund of €550 million.
The Netherlands accuses Marlin of violating his oath and the Constitution of St. Maarten by not leaving immediately.
“This way you are saying that Marlin committed official misconduct and that is pure nonsense,” says Hoogers. The constitutional law expert closely monitors the developments between The Hague and the island.
“After the parliament sent Marlin and five other ministers away with a motion of no-confidence, he and his fellow-ministers properly submitted their resignation. The governor determines what to do with the resignations. In this case Marlin was allowed to stay in office until an interim-cabinet replaced him.”
But the parliament really wanted to remove Marlin to make sure that his successor does sign of on the conditions for reconstruction. This is why the parliament passed a second motion of no confidence.
“The rule is: after a motion of no confidence you become outgoing. You step aside when the king, and on the islands his representative, takes that decision. Furthermore, the governor was and still is also in the process of forming an interim-government that has to succeed Marlin.”
The question is why the governor does not listen to instructions from the parliament.
“The parliament cannot give instructions to the governor through motions,” Hoogers says. “Whatever you may think of Marlin, constitutionally he acted correctly by – after the first motion of no confidence – offering his resignation to the governor. Obviously, you cannot do that again, even if the parliament passes another motion of no confidence against you,” Hoogers says.
“It is constitutionally rather odd what State Secretary Knops says about the duty to step down after such a motion. Marlin abided by that duty by submitting his resignation on November 2.”
But still, Marlin honored the call by submitting a national decree about his own dismissal.
“They have written new constitutional law that says that you have to leave immediately when there is a second motion of no confidence,” Hoogers says. A motion of no confidence followed by a second motion of no confidence against the same minister has never happened before in the Netherlands. For St. Maarten this is also completely new. We do not have rules at all for such a situation – so saying that Marlin violated them is pure nonsense.”
Theoretically, Hoogers says, “this means that when all ministers would be sent home this way, you would not have a government at all anymore.”
Nevertheless, in the end the representatives of the people, the parliament, got what it wanted. Is that a victory for the democracy?
Hoogers: “From a legal perspective it does not seem sound that it becomes applicable law that a parliament can affect any decision through a motion that binds other constitutional bodies directly and unconditionally.”
Photo above caption: Professor Gerard Hoogers. Photo www.rug.nl.
