Brug accuses PM Mercelina of abuse of power, bullying and hijacking Ministerial responsibilities

GREAT BAY--Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor Richinel Brug used his appearance in Parliament on Tuesday to level serious accusations against Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina, alleging abuse of power, bullying, intimidation and the repeated hijacking of his ministerial responsibilities.

Brug told Parliament that he was being placed under pressure because he refused to comply with requests from the Prime Minister that, according to him, would have required him to break the law, deviate from established procedures and interfere with ministerial processes within the Ministry of VSA. He said the situation had escalated to the point where ministerial advices were being blocked from reaching the Council of Ministers unless they reflected the outcome desired by the Prime Minister.

“I refuse to go along with the different requests of the Prime Minister to break the law within the Ministry of VSA,” Brug stated, adding that the issues related in particular to legislative projects, the hiring of consultants and decisions that he said fell under his ministerial jurisdiction, not that of the Prime Minister.

According to Brug, he received a memorandum from the Prime Minister dated December 15, 2025, requesting that he agree in writing to deviate from an advice prepared by the ministry after due diligence had already taken place. Brug said the advice did not reflect the outcome the Prime Minister wanted, because, according to him, the Prime Minister had already hired a consultant for a project that did not fall under the Prime Minister’s jurisdiction.

Brug told Members of Parliament that he refused to sign on to the position and instead made clear in writing that he was not in agreement. He further claimed that emails were later sent to stakeholders suggesting that he and the Prime Minister were in agreement on certain decisions, which he said was not true. Brug said he had to send corrections to clarify that he had not agreed to what was being presented.

Responding to a question from MP Ardwell Irion, who raised the possibility that this could amount to the falsification of an official decision-making record, Brug said it was not hypothetical that communications had gone out stating that he had agreed with the Prime Minister when he had not.

“It has been that certain emails were sent to certain stakeholders stating that I made agreements with the Prime Minister on certain decisions that was not true,” Brug told Parliament.

Brug also accused the Prime Minister of blocking his advices from being placed on the Council of Ministers’ agenda, saying that he sought clarification from higher authorities and was told repeatedly that the chair of the Council of Ministers does not have the authority to prevent another minister’s advice from being placed on the agenda.

The Minister described the actions as intimidation and a direct intrusion into his portfolio. He said the Prime Minister went as far as demanding documents, holding meetings with department heads, and allegedly instructing persons within the ministry to report to him.

Brug said civil servants had also approached him with concerns, stating that they too had been pressured to perform unlawful acts. He linked this to the need for stronger whistleblower protections, noting that civil servants are often afraid of retaliation.

“One of the things that the Integrity Chamber proposed or suggested to government is to introduce whistleblower protection,” Brug said. “Based on my experience, civil servants are afraid of being retaliated against.”

The Minister confirmed that he has submitted an official complaint to the Integrity Chamber requesting an investigation into integrity matters within VSA. However, he said he was limited in how much he could disclose publicly while awaiting clarification on what could be shared on the floor of Parliament.

Brug’s remarks came during a meeting requested by Members of Parliament to address recent integrity-related allegations within the Ministry of VSA, including the request for an investigation by the Integrity Chamber.

The Minister opened his presentation by acknowledging that several Members of Parliament had called the situation an embarrassment for St. Maarten. He said he too felt badly about being part of such a moment, but stressed that the public needed to understand why he had found himself in this position.

According to Brug, he was not before Parliament because he had done anything wrong, but because he had tried to do what was right. He said individuals with “alternative agendas” had created the circumstances now facing him, and that the public deserved to know the truth.

Brug also addressed the letter from the URSM board, which informed him that he was no longer recognized as a member of the party and expressed a lack of confidence in his ability to continue serving effectively as a minister. He said the letter raised questions about contracts he signed in early 2025 and appointments related to SZV.

The Minister said he joined URSM because he believed in the principles the party had presented to the people of St. Maarten. Despite what he described as difficult experiences within the party and with its leadership, he said he chose to remain professional and kept internal matters out of the public domain out of respect for the institution and to avoid embarrassment for the country.

“Only God knows what I went through,” Brug said. “I’ve never spoken out publicly. I always kept matters internal.”

Brug said he focused instead on working hard for senior citizens, vulnerable persons and others who had placed their trust in him. He rejected any suggestion that he had failed in his responsibilities, saying he was a quiet person by nature but would not remain silent when his integrity and actions were questioned.

On the issue of the mental health project being carried out by NRPB, Brug explained that early in his tenure he became concerned about the ministry’s ability to properly oversee such an important project. He said there was initially only one individual handling the project, and that person was functioning partly for VSA and partly for NRPB.

Brug said his Cabinet moved to obtain an assessment of the project from a consultant with hands-on experience in World Bank donor-funded projects. He acknowledged that the consultant’s company was connected to the husband of his chef de cabinet and called that an oversight, but insisted it was not intentional and was never hidden.

He said a request for advice was sent to Legal Affairs in December 2024, before the finalization of the contract, and that a reminder was sent in January 2025. Brug said the response from Legal Affairs, due to capacity constraints, was that as minister he could proceed but would be responsible for any decision taken.

The Minister stressed that the process was not hidden, adding that both he and his chef de cabinet handled the matter openly. He said the consultant was selected based on qualifications and experience, not favoritism.

“This was no favor given to anybody,” Brug said. “We followed the process.”

According to Brug, the assessment proved valuable because it identified serious concerns related to the management and oversight of the mental health project. He said the ministry was not receiving information in a timely manner, the budgeted funds were likely insufficient to complete the project, and the ministry had not been provided with the master schedule for months.

Brug said those findings confirmed that VSA needed strong technical oversight to safeguard the interests of the ministry and the country. He added that the ministry lacked the internal manpower and specialized knowledge to properly oversee the project and that external technical support became necessary.

He also addressed issues involving SZV, saying the recruitment process for a key position raised multiple red flags. Brug said the process started later than expected, the advertisement appeared to favor internal candidates, confidential information leaked, and there were irregularities in the scoring process, including a reported score of 104 percent.

He said stakeholders, including the Prime Minister and members of the URSM board, expressed preferences on how the situation should be handled. Brug said the Prime Minister preferred extending the mandate of the then director, while the URSM board president preferred proceeding with the appointment of the top candidate despite concerns about the process.

Brug said his own initial preference was to consider an interim director to ensure continuity while the process was reviewed. However, after seeking legal advice from three different legal experts, he concluded that the only responsible option was to follow the provisions of the SZV law.

The Minister rejected allegations that he personally appointed the current adjoint director of SZV to fit a particular narrative. He said the candidate had already been proposed by the Chairman of the SZV Supervisory Board in June 2024, under the previous minister, and that the process was already in motion before he became involved.

“My responsibility was simply to ensure that the process was completed in accordance with the law and continuity within the institution was maintained,” Brug said.

Brug also warned that SZV’s financial sustainability remained a serious concern. He said those concerns had been repeatedly raised by the Cft and that the institution appeared to be placing significant focus on the construction of a new building while other financial priorities needed attention.

He told Parliament that he had instructed SZV to review major investment projects, including the St. Maarten Medical Center, White and Yellow Cross, the Mental Health Foundation and the proposed new SZV building. He said SZV was also instructed to accelerate work on draft legislation, revise its 2026 budget with clear cost containment measures and identify interim solutions for its financial situation.

Throughout his presentation, Brug maintained that he had acted in good faith and in accordance with his oath of office. He said he understood that his statements placed coalition MPs in a difficult position, but urged them to place St. Maarten above coalition interests if a motion of no confidence is brought against him.

He said he had proof to support his claims and invited Members of Parliament to speak directly with civil servants who, according to him, could confirm what had been taking place.

Brug said the pressure he faced was not because of wrongdoing on his part, but because he refused to “march to the beat” of those asking him to do things he considered unlawful and unethical.

“All I have is my integrity and my name,” Brug said. “I will continue to serve with integrity no matter what the future brings.”

He closed by saying that if Parliament ultimately decides to support a vote of no confidence against him, he would leave office with his head held high, confident that he stood up for the people of St. Maarten and for what he believed was right.

‍