The MEP faction took a firm institutional step this morning within the framework of oversight and integrity. The Leader of the MEP Faction, Mrs. Evelyn Wever-Croes, alongside Mr. Rocco Tjon, presented themselves at the office of the Governor of Aruba to formally submit two detailed legal opinions regarding the controversial trip of Minister Gerlien Croes in a private jet. Both analyses, prepared by independent local as well as international experts, demonstrate that the actions of the minister are in direct conflict with integrity standards and aviation laws.
The fact that the MEP faction had to resort to the Governor’s Cabinet is not an “isolated” act. As Members of Parliament (both opposition and coalition), we have been using all official channels to get answers—as MPs we have asked written questions, requested question hours (vragenuur), requested face-to-face debates, and none have yielded results. This caused us to begin the path toward a public records request (LOB-verzoek), which is an official way for citizens to demand clarity and proof from a minister. Unfortunately, not even this worked to gain clarity on the matter. Meanwhile, legal opinions continue to indicate that the situation is grave, and as Parliament, we cannot sit idly by with crossed arms and allow our institution to be mocked in this manner. Therefore, seeing the systematic silence and the evident lack of will to render accountability to Parliament, as MPs we saw ourselves under the institutional obligation to escalate this matter to the highest level. It is unacceptable to let the silence of ministers become the “norm.”
Legal Opinions
These documents evaluate the case from two angles:
International aviation standards of the United States (FAA), where the jet is registered.
Our local integrity laws for ministers in Aruba.
The first document presented is a “Formal Legal Opinion” issued by a certified expert in American aviation law. According to the legal analysis based on American Aviation Law, the jet does not possess certification to execute commercial flights; in other words, it is not allowed to charge anyone. Consequently, if Minister Gerlien Croes paid for this flight (whether with public or personal funds), that transaction constitutes a direct violation of American laws, which is known internationally as an “illegal charter.” In addition to this, if she did pay, the Minister has an obligation to show Parliament proof of this transaction.
The second document, based on local laws, agrees with what the American legal opinion states but goes even further. If the minister DID NOT pay, the flight is automatically classified as a gift or favor of high economic value. Local jurists explain that a Minister absolutely cannot accept a favor of this magnitude from a private company, and by hiding this from Parliament, the Minister violated the reporting obligation (meldplicht) and the principle of transparency required by law.
Conclusion
These two legal opinions, both the American and the local one, show that the Minister is guilty of weakening public standards. It is simple: if she paid, she partook in an illegal flight; if she did not pay, she accepted an illegally high gift for a government minister. And if she claims that she paid but cannot provide proof, she violates the constitutional obligation to provide transparent and truthful information to Parliament.
THE TRUTH ALWAYS CATCHES UP TO THE LIE, NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE LIE IS!