Last Monday, the Council of State of the Netherlands (Raad van State) published its official advice regarding the Kingdom Law HOFA. Just as the Advisory Council (Raad van Advies) previously indicated, the Council of State also concludes—specifically on page 5 of their advice—that HOFA limits the autonomy of our country.
Mrs. Wever-Croes, faction leader of the MEP party, declared the following:
“We are proven right once again. This is exactly what we have been emphasizing since August 2025, when the government presented the document they signed for HOFA.”
Wever-Croes underlined that this “WE” encompasses a broad national unity consisting of: the MEP party, the PPA party, Mr. Mike de Mesa of AVP, all labor unions, legal experts, and more than 10,000 signatories who stood up to defend our country.
An end to the discussion
The leader of the MEP party expressed her satisfaction with the advice received, highlighting that this puts a definitive end to the discussion of whether HOFA limits our autonomy.
“The discussion is no longer if HOFA limits our autonomy; the question is whether it is fair for the Netherlands to impose this condition, right now when Aruba’s finances are doing so well, as the Council of State itself confirmed,” Wever-Croes emphasized.
An unfair demand
Both the Council of State and the Advisory Council emphasize the importance of having an adequate exit mechanism (exitregeling), which is not stipulated in the current law. On this point, the Advisory Council goes further and is explicit: Aruba cannot structurally decide for itself when it exits, but instead depends entirely on permission from the Netherlands.
Mrs. Wever-Croes pointed out that the lack of a proper exit arrangement eliminates the principle of voluntariness (vrijwilligheid), and consequently, one cannot speak of a consensus. For real consensus to exist, there must be the freedom both to enter and to exit, which is currently not the case.
Furthermore, the Council of State is highly critical of the law’s lack of clarity, as it does not concretely stipulate what the benefits are, nor which debts will be refinanced. At the same time, the supreme advisory body questions the absence of a transparent overview of the PPP (Public-Private Partnership) projects that the AVP government entered into during the 2009–2017 period.
Wever-Croes hopes that the government of Aruba realizes they cannot proceed with HOFA as it currently stands. She noted that the discussion must be held both here and in the Netherlands, to question whether the limitation of our autonomy is a fair condition just to lower the interest rate from 6.9% to 3.4%. The MEP leader emphasized that, looking at Aruba’s current financial situation, it is not fair to demand the surrender of autonomy just for an interest reduction.
A selective view of reality
The MEP leader questioned the government’s ‘roadshow’, during which the Minister of Finance tried to convince commercial trade associations that HOFA does not limit our autonomy. According to Wever-Croes, the Minister of Finance tried every possible way to convince the commercial sector that HOFA does not limit our country’s autonomy. Now that the details are coming to light, it becomes more than obvious that the minister gave a selective view of reality. It is precisely for that reason that the minister insisted on keeping the opposition out of these meetings.
She concluded her statement with a direct call to the government:
“Now it is no longer just MEP, PPA, Mr. De Mesa of AVP, the unions, and the more than 10,000 signatories saying that HOFA limits our autonomy. Now the Advisory Council and the Council of State confirm it as well. I hope the government uses these advices as allies, goes back to the table with the Netherlands, and stands firm for our autonomy.”