Emmanuel: Tackling using same company that paid her Xcg 160,000 was poor judgement

GREAT BAY--"The Minister and her defenders need to be honest with themselves and the people." Leader of the Nation Opportunity Wealth Party Christophe Emmanuel on Tuesday said Minister of Justice Nathalie Tackling exercised poor judgement by seeking advice from UNOPS on the calculation of time served in determining the possible early release of former Member of Parliament Theodore Heyliger, after her law firm had previously received a contract valued at approximately XCG 160,000 from the same organization.

Emmanuel said the Minister’s explanation that the relationship between Tackling Law and UNOPS ended before she assumed office did not resolve the concern. He argued that her subsequent decision, as Minister of Justice, to consult the same organization contradicted the purpose of distancing herself from the relationship in the first place.

“You cannot argue that the contract was terminated to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, then turn around as Minister and rely on that same organization for advice on a sensitive matter under your authority,” Emmanuel said.

The United Nations Global Marketplace records show that UNOPS awarded Tackling Legal & Consultancy B.V. a US$90,000 professional services contract on March 6, 2024, for technical advisory services connected to its St. Maarten office. The amount is equivalent to approximately XCG 160,000.

Emmanuel said that financial relationship alone should have prompted the Minister to seek an independent expert or institution to perform the calculation.

“UNOPS paid your company approximately XCG 160,000. That alone should have given you pause. There were other legal professionals and institutions that could have conducted or verified the calculation. Instead, you chose the organization that had paid your firm,” he said.

Emmanuel said Tackling cannot have it both ways. She cannot claim that her law firm ended its relationship with UNOPS to remove any conflict before she became Minister, then use the same company for advice once she was in office and responsible for matters connected to its work.

“You stepped away from UNOPS so that the relationship would not stand in the way of becoming Minister, but after passing the screening, you turned around and brought UNOPS directly into one of the most sensitive decisions before your Ministry. That makes the entire explanation fall apart,” Emmanuel said.

He said the decision also raises serious questions about the screening process. Emmanuel, who has undergone ministerial screening himself, said candidates are questioned thoroughly about their companies, contracts, business connections and any organization that could later fall within their area of responsibility.

“I am certain questions were asked about her relationship with UNOPS. The screeners apparently accepted that the relationship had ended and cleared her to become Minister. For her to then go back to UNOPS for advice makes a mockery of the very safeguard that was supposed to protect the public from this kind of conflict,” Emmanuel said.

He added that UNOPS is involved in the new prison project, which falls directly under Tackling’s responsibility as Minister of Justice. “This was not some old client with no connection to her Ministry. This is a company that paid her firm and is now working on a major project under her authority. Any sensible person could see why she should have stayed far away from involving them in this decision.”

He added that Member of Parliament Sjamira Roseburg has publicly outlined an accurate calculation and that other legal experts could have been consulted without creating the same questions. Emmanuel said the Minister’s cabinet, advisors and the leadership of the Soualiga Action Movement SAM should have advised her to acknowledge that consulting UNOPS was a poor decision rather than defend it.

“Those around the Minister are not helping her by pretending that nothing is wrong. They should be honest with her and tell her that this was a poor judgement call. Doubling down only makes the situation worse,” he said.

He argued that the matter now extends beyond the calculation involving Heyliger and raises broader questions about how the Minister identifies and manages potential conflicts in other decisions.

“Everyone defending this decision must be honest with themselves. Public officials have been heavily criticized for far less. The Minister is deserving of the questions because her own decision placed the Ministry in this position,” Emmanuel concluded.

‍