Laville innocent until proven guilty!
Should not nominate a minister, but rather appeal to Crown
Legal scholars in the Netherlands and locally have sounded the alarm about the governor's performance during the past weeks' constitutional impasse. Many false steps, are being blamed on the governor's deviation from his rules of order. This is mainly attributed to the inexperience of the Governor and the fact that this is the first time the country has experienced the dissolution of Parliament by government.
But sources contacted by SMN news point out that all this could have been easily avoided had the governor followed his rules of order. They point to the case of MP Laville who has been particularly victimized by certain procedural errors committed by the governor. These sources insist that once a LB or Landsbesluit (National Decree) has been submitted to the governor, he can only send it on to King if in his opinion it violated one of five critera listed in Article 21 of the Rules of Order of the Governor of St. Maarten.
The appointment of Laville was done by National Decree. The rules of order are quite clear in this respect. Once the governor determines that he will not sign a National Decree he is duty bound to send it on to the King for a final decision. He may not allow it to lie around or send it back to the Council of Ministers.
The reason for this step legal scholars explained is to guarantee due process. In the case of Laville they point out, once the national decree reached the King, it would have been turned over the Council of State, who would examine the file and advise the King. In order to give a proper advice, a formal hearing would have taken place where Laville would have had a fair chance to present his side. He would also be allowed to be represented by lawyers if he chose to do so. He could for example, have pointed out to the Council, that the governor violated the presumption of innocence. He has not been convicted of any crime by a court of law, and should be therefore considered innocent until proven guilty. Furthermore, St. Maarten has never passed an Ethics in Government law, so that there is no legal basis for denying him the post of Minister. And, finally he was condemned by the governor without having a chance to defend himself. The governor's actions amount to giving him a sentence which he cannot appeal. This act in and of itself can be considered "bad governance".
By not following the rules, Mr. Laville's rights to due process have been violated. The governor, legal experts feel has wrongfully assumed the position of judge jury and executioner in the case of Laville. Asked by SMN news if Mr. Laville has any recourse, they opined that he is free to approach the Council of State, as his rights to due process were violated. It would be then up to the Counci to decide how to proceed. They however stressed that Mr. Laville had nothing to lose, but much to gain, by seeking redress. Laville they concurred, should not nominate a minister to take his place as doing so can create an irreversible situation. He should hold off all action which can jeopardize his position, and appeal to the Crown right away. One issue that might be resolved for the future is the Governor's handling of National Decrees.
