The proposed Kingdom Act on Financial Supervision for Aruba (HOFA) is not merely a financial instrument, but a legal trap that could signify the end of the ‘Status Aparte’ as we know it. Analyzing the legal documents reveals that this law touches the very foundations of our constitutional state, degrading Aruba’s position within the Kingdom.
Below is an in-depth look at the 5 critical dimensions of HOFA and their direct consequences for our island:
1. Violation of our Constitution (Staatsregeling): The Hague at the Wheel
The first dimension is a direct infringement on our legislative power. According to our Constitution, the Government of Aruba, together with Parliament, sovereignly establishes laws.
The Danger: Article 38 of the Kingdom Act stipulates that Aruba cannot change or repeal its own laws without prior permission from the Kingdom Council of Ministers (RMR) in the Netherlands.
Consequence: This places the Government and Parliament of Aruba under the command of The Hague, which is a constitutionally unacceptable construction.
2. Bypassing the Statute: A Legal Shortcut
This dimension highlights how the Netherlands intends to use the path of a “Consensus Kingdom Act” to bypass the formal procedures of the Kingdom Statute.
The Danger: Changes to autonomy must undergo a rigorous revision procedure (Art. 55 of the Statute), which is being omitted here.
Consequence: “Financial blackmail” (tying lower interest rates to the acceptance of the law) is used to force a shift in the distribution of power within the Kingdom, without any basis in the Statute for doing so.
3. Hollow Out of Parliament: From Deciding to Rubber-Stamping
The power of the purse (budgetrecht) is the most critical pillar of a democratic Parliament.
The Danger: Parliament loses its authority to independently decide on and amend the budget, as they must comply with dictates from The Hague.
Consequence: Parliament is degraded from a policy-making body to a mere “rubber-stamp office.” Aruba loses its status and effectively becomes a Dutch province or municipality.
4. Socio-Economic Paralysis: Prisoner of Tourism
HOFA imposes a financial straightjacket that stifles growth.
The Danger: The law places an absolute priority on debt repayment, hindering investments in education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
Consequence: Without room to invest during times of crisis (anti-cyclical investment), Aruba cannot diversify its economy. We remain trapped in a structural dependency on tourism, vulnerable to any external shock.
5. The “Stranglehold Interest Rate” Strategy: Punishment for Good Behavior
The final dimension is perhaps the most ironic. While Aruba has demonstrated exemplary financial discipline, the Netherlands is using a “stranglehold interest rate” (wurgrente) as a political weapon.
The Reality: Aruba reduced its debt from 117% (2020) to 71% (2025) and received an A- rating from S&P in April 2026.
The Punishment: Despite this success, the Netherlands charges Aruba a 6.9% interest rate on COVID loans, while Curaçao pays around 3%.
Consequence: This is viewed as a “permanent trap,” where only the RMR has the power to decide when the law terminates, leaving Aruba in a situation where it could remain under supervision indefinitely.
Journalistic Conclusion: The analysis of HOFA reveals that the price for lower interest rates is the surrender of our fundamental autonomy. The example of Curaçao, which experienced a negative growth of -0.9% under similar supervision, serves as a serious warning of what awaits Aruba if it accepts the Kingdom Law HOFA in its current form and under these conditions.