MPs York and Lewis say Brug allegations serious, but warn his own conduct also requires scrutiny

GREAT BAY--Members of Parliament Darryl York and Lyndon Lewis responded to Minister Richinel Brug’s parliamentary presentation by acknowledging the seriousness of his accusations against Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina, while also stressing that Brug’s own actions must be examined carefully and fairly.

Both MPs said the issues raised in Parliament cannot be reduced to political loyalty or party conflict. They argued that Parliament must look at documentation, evidence, legality, perception and the broader effect on public trust in government.

MP Darryl York said Parliament and the public should not underestimate the gravity of what had taken place during Minister Brug’s presentation. He noted that a sitting member of the Council of Ministers had placed on record allegations involving words and concepts such as “hijack,” “blackmail,” “unlawful acts,” pressure on civil servants and corruption. York said these were not minor accusations, but allegations about what may be taking place inside the government apparatus itself.

According to York, the public’s declining confidence in government institutions is tied directly to situations like the one unfolding in Parliament. When ministers publicly accuse one another of interference, unlawful conduct and political manipulation, he said, citizens are left to question who is actually governing and whether decisions are being made in the public interest or through political pressure.

York was particularly critical of the role reportedly played by the URSM party board. He said a party board is not elected by the people of St. Maarten and should not be functioning as a political decision-making body for the country. In his view, a party board may have an organizational role within a political party, but it should not be determining or influencing government appointments, ministerial decisions or the direction of public entities.

He pointed specifically to the discussion surrounding SZV, where Brug had indicated that members of the party board expressed preferences regarding the appointment process. York said that if a party board is weighing in on who should become SZV CEO, then the country has a serious governance problem. He questioned whether this type of influence may also explain why important issues, such as relief for GEBE consumers, remain unresolved.

York said that type of political involvement would be “unethical,” adding that he was being careful with his choice of words. He suggested that the public deserves clarity on whether elected and appointed officials are making decisions independently, or whether unelected party structures are influencing decisions behind the scenes.

At the same time, York made clear that his criticism was not directed only at the Prime Minister, the party board or the coalition. He told Brug directly that his own hands were not clean in the matter. York said that even if there was no criminal wrongdoing in the contract involving the company linked to the husband of Brug’s chief of staff, the issue still raised a major concern about perception.

York stressed that politics and public administration are not only about whether something is technically legal. They are also about whether the public can look at a decision and trust that it was fair, clean and free from favoritism. He said when the public hears that a minister’s chief of staff signed advices, and that the chief of staff’s husband’s company received a government contract, the appearance alone is damaging.

For York, that was a good governance issue. He asked whether Brug understood that avoiding the appearance of favoritism is just as important as defending the legality of a decision. He said the words “chief of staff,” “husband’s company,” “government contract” and “urgent” together naturally raise questions in the public mind, even before any legal conclusion is reached.

However, York also challenged the timing of the outrage over Brug’s actions. He recalled that Brug had already appeared before Parliament on May 22, 2025, during a meeting on the Mental Health Institute project. York said he personally questioned and debated Brug at that time on many of the same issues now being raised again. According to York, Brug did not hide from the issue then, nor did he invent a new story now. York said the Minister largely gave the same explanation during the earlier meeting as he did in the current debate.

That, York said, raises a serious question: if these matters were known months ago, why are they only now being used as the basis for political action against Brug? He said those who whispered about wrongdoing in the past cannot suddenly shout about it now simply because it has become politically convenient.

York also drew attention to the issue of proceeding without advice from Legal Affairs. He said he and other opposition MPs had repeatedly raised similar concerns over the past year and a half regarding other ministers and major government matters, including the national budget and Central Bank-related issues. Yet, he said, coalition MPs did not show the same concern then.

He argued that Parliament cannot apply one standard to Brug and another standard to other ministers. If bypassing or proceeding without certain advice is now being treated as a major integrity issue, then York said the same standard must be applied across government. Otherwise, he warned, the exercise becomes selective accountability.

York requested documentation to substantiate the claims made during the meeting. He asked for all documents signed by Brug’s chief of staff, as well as memos related to the “big registration” process that Brug said had been hijacked from his ministry. York also requested the memo reportedly sent back to the Prime Minister on December 17 and any other documentation that supports Brug’s allegations.

He said he was prepared to receive sensitive documents through confidential parliamentary channels if necessary. York made clear that Parliament should not rely only on speeches, letters or political statements when the allegations are this serious. The claims, he said, must be tested against documentation.

York also questioned whether Brug’s allegations against the Prime Minister were being brought to Parliament only because of the political pressure now facing him. He noted that the Prime Minister had previously promoted the big registration project publicly. If Brug believed the project had been hijacked from VSA, York asked why that concern was not raised more forcefully at the time.

Still, York said the Prime Minister must come to Parliament to respond. He said if Brug is being subjected to multiple meetings and a possible motion of no confidence, then the Prime Minister must also answer the allegations made against him. York said words like hijacking, blackmail, unlawful acts and pressure on civil servants cannot be left hanging without a formal response.

He concluded that the matter should not be allowed to distract indefinitely from the pressing issues facing the people of St. Maarten. York cited rising fuel prices, GEBE bills, garbage, infrastructure and traffic as examples of issues awaiting government action. While Parliament must deal with integrity concerns, he said, it must also remember that people are hurting and need solutions.

MP Lewis said he has known Brug for many years and believes his heart is in the right place. He said they had been candidates on the same political list in the past (USP) and that she also knew him from his work with youth and community programs. However, he warned that a 12-page letter without supporting documents or evidence is only one side of the story.

Lewis said allegations must be substantiated when brought to the floor of Parliament. He said He could not rely on hearsay and would have to weigh Brug’s statements, responses from other MPs and any documentation before making a decision on a possible motion.

He also addressed the contract involving the company linked to the husband of Brug’s chief of staff. Lewis pointed to Article 54 of the LMA and said the law is clear that government employees and close family members face restrictions involving contracts with government. He said the chief of staff’s signing of an advice involving her husband’s company raised a serious concern.

At the same time, Lewis said He understood how ministers can face pressure, referencing his own experience with decisions being challenged. He stated that no Prime Minister, Governor or other official can tell a minister how to run a ministry. A minister, He said, must make decisions with a sound mind, receive advice, decide whether to follow it, and motivate any deviation.

Lewis said he does not see himself as judge, jury or executioner, but as an MP who must make a decision based on the integrity of the institution and the way forward for the country. He said if any matter is criminal, then the legal authorities must handle it.

He also criticized the Council of Ministers as a whole, saying the country is being harmed by ministers who cannot work together properly. Lewis said the public cannot be misled and that government must be honest about its internal dysfunction. The entire Council of Ministers, he said, is incompetent.

‍