The LNT law is at the center of a serious debate on transparency and good governance
Minister Geoffrey Wever attended a public meeting in Parliament to seek Parliament’s stance on a letter he submitted proposing several changes to the Top Incomes Standardization Act (Landsverordening Normering Topinkomens – LNT). This is the law that caps excessive salaries in the public and semi-public sectors.
The debate did not reach a conclusion. Mid-discussion, the Futuro Fraction requested a suspension of the meeting. For MP Endy Croes, the timing was no coincidence: the suspension came precisely when the questions became too uncomfortable for Minister Wever.
What is the LNT law about? The LNT is a law imposed on Aruba by the Netherlands as a condition for the liquidity support loans Aruba received during COVID-19. The objective is simple: no director of a state-owned company, government entity, or foundation whose board is appointed by the government may earn more than 130% of a Prime Minister’s salary. Due to an 11.7% indexation, the current cap increased from 329,000 to 369,000 florins per year. Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are all required to implement this law jointly.
The 1.6 million florins per year exception In November 2025, following a request from Schiphol, Minister Geoffrey Wever used Article 12 of the law to grant a Dutch national—specifically the Director of the Aruba Airport Authority—a salary exemption of nearly 1.6 million florins per year. This is more than four times the legal cap. The minister did this without consulting Parliament beforehand. It is the same pattern seen with the Rijkswet HOFA: major decisions being made without parliamentary consultation.
In Parliament, the minister stated that he acted this way after Minister Mike Eman and Minister Wendrick Cicilia requested cooperation with the Netherlands in the Council of Ministers. However, it is noteworthy that out of all pending requests, only the Dutch national’s petition was processed immediately.
What the government’s legal department wrote vs. What the minister presented This is the core of the entire issue. Minister Geoffrey Wever presented Parliament with advice from the government’s legal department dated February 27, 2026. The minister claimed that the department itself advised him to seek Parliament’s sentiment and to apply a “favorable policy” (begunstigend beleid) to handle pending requests with favoritism.
The MEP Fraction reviewed the original advice, which states something entirely different:
“Vooruitlopend op deze evaluatie en op de mogelijke uitkomsten van de lopende LNT rechtzaken adviseer ik voorts om de LNT overeenkomstig mijn antwoorden op uw vragen te wijzigen.” — Official advice from the government’s legal department, February 27, 2026.
The legal department advised the minister to amend the law first—not to seek opinions to subsequently apply favoritism. These are two completely different instructions.
Furthermore, the MEP Fraction confronted the minister on a second point: the evaluation that allegedly took place. When Minister Wever was asked if he had evaluated the law, he answered in the affirmative. However, he never established the expert committee that the legal department advised him to form.
When the MEP Fraction confronted the minister with the discrepancies between what the government’s legal department wrote and what he presented to Parliament, the meeting was suspended.
MP Endy Croes leaves it to the people of Aruba to draw their own conclusions. We are dealing with a minister who presents something to Parliament that differs from his own legal department’s advice; who halts a public meeting when questions become uncomfortable; and who continues a pattern of failing to consult Parliament—the same pattern seen with HOFA and the airport director’s exemption. How long will this be permitted in the house of democracy? Regrettably, it seems the truth hurts.