Court declares suspension ruling null and void; Joselin Croes proven right in case against the Government of Aruba.
In a verdict delivered on September 21, 2026, the Court of First Instance of Aruba (Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg) declared null and void (nietig) the decision of the Governor/Government of Aruba to suspend the Director of Arubahuis, Ms. Joselin S. Croes. This verdict marks a heavy blow to governmental authorities, pointing to a lack of due care, a unilateral investigation, and a lack of proper justification in the process to suspend the official.
Ms. Joselin Croes was appointed Director of Arubahuis in the Netherlands on December 1, 2023, for a 5-year period. However, since late 2025, the working relationship hit obstacles after Minister Gerlien Croes requested an independent investigation into her performance, alleging a supposedly “unworkable situation” and financial and administrative irregularities.
After stripping her of her authority and barring her access to the Arubahuis building for several weeks, on March 17, 2026, the decision was made via National Decree (Landsbesluit) to officially suspend Ms. Croes from her position pending a disciplinary investigation.
The Civil Service Judge (mr. W.J.A.M. van Brussel) was very clear in his assessment and ruled in favor of Ms. Joselin Croes’ objection:
• Lack of Hoor en Wederhoor (Right of Defense): The Court emphasized that suspending a high-ranking public official in a prominent position such as Director of Arubahuis is an extremely drastic measure that hinders her work and causes serious damage to her good reputation. The Government was obligated to formally hear Ms. Joselin Croes before making the suspension decision, something that did NOT properly occur.
• Unilateral and Incomplete Investigation: The Judge found that the accusations and alleged poor performance were based on an incomplete and unilateral investigation by the Department of Human Resources (DRH). The Government did not give the official the opportunity to provide her version of the facts before imposing the suspension.
• Lack of Current Relevance and Real Necessity: Although the director was suspended under the argument of conducting a disciplinary investigation, no additional investigation was carried out during the months of suspension. The investigation into the facts had already been completed in February 2026, meaning there was no current service interest (actueel dienstbelang) or urgent need to maintain the suspension for so long.
• Unsubstantiated Accusations: The Court noted that allegations regarding a lack of integrity or breach of trust lacked a solid foundation due to the absence of an objective investigation.
Result and Cost to the Country
For these reasons, the court decided to:
• Declare the suspension decision null and void (nietig).
• Order the Government of Aruba to pay the legal and court costs of the case.
This judgment highlights the importance of respecting the principles of good governance (behoorlijk bestuur) and the right of defense of public servants, demonstrating that arbitrary measures without due investigation cannot stand under the law.