HOFA is not temporary, it is unconstitutional, and it was not born from a free consensus.
Following a detailed analysis of the latest advice regarding the proposed HOFA Kingdom Act, MEP Fraction Leader Mrs. Evelyn Wever-Croes expressed deep concern over the impact this law will have on Aruba’s future. According to Mrs. Wever-Croes, the study prepared by two Dutch professors of constitutional law puts forward three fundamental arguments that question the very structure of the law, demonstrating that this proposal breaks the basic principles of our autonomy and the constitutional system of the Kingdom.
1. The “temporary” nature of HOFA is not guaranteed by law
Mrs. Wever-Croes emphasized that, according to the professors’ analysis, the “temporary” nature of HOFA’s supervision is not legally guaranteed. Although the HOFA Kingdom Act speaks of financial supervision for a limited time, Aruba has no legal guarantee that this supervision will actually come to an end.
The process dictates that Aruba can only request for the supervision to end, but the Kingdom Council of Ministers (Rijksministerraad) makes the final decision. Since Aruba has no veto right, no right of co-decision (medebeslissing), and no unilateral right to exit, the Netherlands can decide to continue the supervision even if Aruba fully complies with all norms for several years.
For this reason, the MEP Fraction Leader underlined that HOFA’s temporary nature is political rather than backed by solid legal footing, meaning the restriction of our autonomy could become a long-term issue. Mrs. Wever-Croes explained that this point strikes at the core justification upon which the Council of State (Raad van State) based its positive advice: if the temporary nature falls away, the reason for limiting Aruba’s autonomy loses all value.
2. Article 38 is unconstitutional
As a second point, the MEP Fraction Leader warned about a serious constitutional error in Article 38 of the proposal. The professors conclude that this article grants the Kingdom Council of Ministers a power that is inappropriate within our constitutional legal system.
According to the Kingdom’s constitutional structure, the Kingdom Council of Ministers is an internal administrative body. An internal body cannot grant direct approval to amend an Aruban National Ordinance (Landsverordening); external legal consequences can only flow through a Royal Decree (KB), a Kingdom Act, or an AMvRB. Article 38 breaks this constitutional system without an adequate legal basis. Mrs. Wever-Croes warned that this creates a dangerous precedent that opens the door to further intervention in the country’s autonomous affairs in the future.