A crucial topic like the LNT demands seriousness, transparency, and rigorous parliamentary oversight. This is the stance Minister Geoffrey Wever published recently, and it is difficult to disagree with every single word.
However, this principle prompts an inevitable question: do these standards apply to all government decisions, or are they only invoked when they serve political self-interest? Why was an LNT exemption granted to the Aruba Airport Authority (AAA) without debate in Parliament, yet now a response is requested to amend the law? And why was that same seriousness not applied to the HOFA?
The exemption without prior oversight for the Aruba Airport Authority In November 2025, the Government chose to grant a remarkable exemption for the Aruba Airport Authority (AAA). Through a National Decree (Landsbesluit), an annual salary of Afl. 1,089,396 was authorized for a CEO nominated by Schiphol International BV—an amount nearly three times the Afl. 369,000 legal cap established under the LNT.
No one disputes that a competent director deserves a competitive salary, nor that international cooperation holds great value for the management of our airport. However, a decision of this magnitude—involving public funds and the public interest—demanded prior deliberation on the floor of Parliament, not after the fact.
Why did the Government choose not to seek Parliament’s stance or input before granting this exemption?
The danger of altering the LNT without a solid foundation Now, after the Government opened the floodgates to exemptions, they come to ask for Parliament’s sentiment on four proposed modifications to the LNT. These adjustments are not merely technical; they have the potential to exclude state-owned entities from the law’s scope and replace the existing salary cap with a new framework that does not yet exist.
The Government’s own legal advice confirms that the LNT was enacted under extraordinary circumstances and under heavy pressure from the Netherlands during a period when our country depended on financial liquidity support. The same advisory notes that serious challenges exist, that legal cases against the Country of Aruba are not proceeding favorably, and that the LNT is well overdue for a deep evaluation and revision. However, the legal counsel goes a step further: it advises forming an expert committee to evaluate the effectiveness and practical consequences of the LNT. It also stresses that any new salary cap must be grounded in a rigorous comparative study against entities within our region.
The core question is: if the Government’s own experts recommend an independent evaluation first, why does the Government want to alter the system before that work is finished?
The law cannot be dismantled now under the promise that corporate governance rules will follow later. In that vacuum, who determines salaries? Who oversees them? And how can citizens verify how their money is being spent?
The double standard: One rule for LNT, another for HOFA This is where the Government’s double standard becomes plainly visible. On one hand, the Minister speaks eloquently about seriousness, transparency, and parliamentary oversight for the LNT. On the other hand, in negotiations for the HOFA—a Kingdom Law (Rijkswet) that could impact our autonomy, budget, and financial future—the IPKO agreements to involve Parliament before, during, and after were completely disregarded.
The Government cannot apply transparency rules selectively. You cannot play both sides: demanding proper procedures for the LNT while withholding information regarding the HOFA.
To this day, Parliament has not been given a proper avenue to analyze and define its position before the Government pressed ahead with the HOFA process.
Transparency is not a slogan; it is an obligation. Parliamentary oversight is not a favor granted by the Government; it is the essence of our democracy. It appears Minister Geoffrey Wever is slow to grasp this reality.