Minister Gerlien Croes has decided not to respect the advice of the LAR Objection Commission. The commission ruled in favor of the MEP faction and declared the objection valid (gegrond), ordering the minister to reevaluate her decision and release the documents regarding the work trip carried out on a private jet. However, the minister chose to ignore this advisory body in an attempt to justify her refusal to provide evidence.
This case revolves around the work trip that Minister Croes took on a private jet to Curaçao on November 19, 2025. When clarity and proof of expenses and aircraft authorization were requested, the minister sought to completely ignore the petition and brushed it aside using a new regulation as a formal excuse.
Disrespect for the law and lack of transparency The LAR Objection Commission clearly concluded that the procedure used by the minister was not legally correct and that she should have reevaluated the request. Instead of respecting this legal advice, the minister simply sat on the decision: she declared the objection “ongegrond” and ignored the commission’s advice.
The minister attempts to justify that she has no passenger list, contract, or proof of the full flight cost. She continues to refuse to hand over proof of payment, claiming that this falls under her “personal life,” despite it having been an official business trip.
Demand for accountability and integrity A minister has a constitutional and moral duty to account to the people and provide total transparency regarding the use of resources and official trips undertaken in their capacity. It is unacceptable for an official to continue acting with arrogance, refusing to answer parliamentarians and failing to provide necessary evidence. This attitude is a direct violation of the principles of good governance, the integrity law, and the code of conduct that every minister must respect and comply with.
The President of Parliament is called upon to address this serious matter as soon as possible in a public meeting. Other representatives of the people cannot allow a minister to ignore advisory bodies, break integrity rules, and fail to provide transparency to Parliament.
Based on the information provided by the minister, it has become very interesting to find out who paid for the remaining expenses, how much was paid, and to whom. This way, potential conflicts of interest can be ruled out, and the value of the potential “gift” to the minister can be established. Clearly, this does not take away the fact that the minister remains obligated to answer Parliament: how much she paid, on what day, and to whom.
Our faction will continue to take the necessary parliamentary steps to ensure that the truth comes to light and that the minister finally accounts for her actions.