The new legal package, known as the HOFA Kingdom Law (Houdbare Overheidsfinanciën Aruba), formally presented in its draft stage, marks a turning point in Aruba’s financial autonomy. While the official discourse speaks of “sustainable finances,” the fine print of the law reveals a structural transfer of power to the Kingdom Council of Ministers (RMR).
This document, which includes both the local Landsverordening and the Kingdom Law itself, formalizes the June 4, 2024, agreement between Aruba and the Netherlands—an agreement that was NOT binding and was NOT negotiated by AVP–FUTURO. A deep analysis of the articles reveals five key points where the decision-making power of Aruba’s elected representatives is seriously limited:
1. Loss of Budgetary Sovereignty Until now, the Parliament of Aruba was the supreme body for budget approval. Under the HOFA Kingdom Law, this freedom is virtually eliminated. Deficit norms, public debt limits, and personnel costs are no longer determined in Oranjestad; they are “anchored” in a Kingdom Law. This means no majority in Parliament can decide to change the financial course without the blessing of the Netherlands.
2. Begrotingskamer: The New Watchdog The law introduces the Begrotingskamer (Budget Chamber). Although legally an Aruban entity, its function is to act as a “preventative filter.” The Government of Aruba is obliged to submit all draft budgets to this body. If the Begrotingskamer issues a negative advice, the Government has very little room to maneuver; the “comply or explain” principle puts such high legal pressure that deviating from the advice could be interpreted as a grave violation of the Kingdom Law.
3. Direct Intervention from The Hague The most controversial point remains the role of the Kingdom Council of Ministers (RMR). The HOFA Kingdom Law grants the RMR the legal power to intervene directly in Aruba’s management if norms are not met. This can manifest as an “aanwijzing” (instruction), where The Hague can dictate exactly where to cut spending or how to increase revenue, bypassing the will of local officials.
4. Control over State-Owned Companies (NVs) and Foundations A novelty in this framework is that supervision is not limited to the central Government budget. Control extends structurally to the collective sector, including foundations and, indirectly, the Government’s ability to manage dividends from state-owned companies (NVs). This removes the “emergency fund” that governments often used to plug holes in the national budget.
5. An “Anchor” Almost Impossible to Break By anchoring this financial supervision in the Charter for the Kingdom and a Kingdom Law, Aruba enters a legal structure that is very difficult to dismantle unilaterally. Unlike a local law that can be changed by a majority in the Parliament of Aruba, a Kingdom Law requires the consensus of all partners in the Kingdom. In practice, this means the Netherlands has the first and last word on the future of this supervision and thus, the future of Aruba.
All the points mentioned above are embedded in the “Draft Landsverordening” and the “Draft Proposal for the HOFA Kingdom Law.” These are essentially conditions that Prime Minister Mike Eman, Minister Geoffrey Wever, and Minister Gerlien Croes have placed Aruba in, betraying the voters and the entire community of Aruba.
Journalistic Conclusion The HOFA Kingdom Law is not just a technical instrument to fix finances; it is a legal piece that redefines Aruban autonomy. While the Government sells the law as the only path to stability and low interest rates, the reality is that the island’s financial “steering wheel” is moving further away from the Aruban voter and closer to the control-oriented politicians in The Hague.
Lesa pa bo mes aki bou :