The takeaway: As a businessman, you can make donations to a politician’s reelection campaign based on your trust in his plan and policies and expect that these policies might be realized once his party comes into power. As a politician, accepting donations as a quid pro quo for future permits or other public acts, is Verboden.
(Though rampant and self-understood in traditional political parties, where you donate, and can bank on a favor in return.)
The Avestruz appeal verdict was read in court last week, where a former minister, now a parliamentarian, and a crony were found guilty of defrauding the island. He got 48 months, with 12 months suspended, a three-year probation period, and a five-year hiatus from politics and public service. That sentence was much more severe than the one in the first court case. The crony, a she, received a sentence of 24 months, 12 months suspended, and a three-year probation. A previously imposed Awg 50,000 florins fine was waived. A former employee of the land department also received a sentence of 30 months, with 10 months suspended. He also kissed $1.3M goodbye, for earning it in a not so kosher land deal.
The Ostrich case has been going on for a while, one defendant paid his way out, with 1 million florins going into GOA’s coffers, and in exchange for his donation to GOA, his donation to the minister’s reelection campaign wasn’t considered a bribe against granting a long-lease amendment to his hotel, for the purpose of building more room. One defendant was cleared, others got off the hook for insufficient evidence.
What one of my friends says: I think during investigations the prosecutors usually target a large group around the primary suspect(s) hoping to gather evidence, testimonies, plea bargains etc. In each round some of the accused have been let off the hook. This time there were four more set free. In a criminal case the bar is high, beyond reasonable doubt that defendants intended to defraud… hence I am not surprised that charges against four more were dismissed. To put it in perspective, anyone who petitioned for a residential property with the express purpose of building it for sale as opposed to personal use, could potentially face charges, especially if he/she had any type of relation with the minister. Those that seem to have received more valuable commercial land and were close to the minister were targeted by the investigation, but the principle still is the same, if you build for sale and not for personal use, you may face charges.
Here is what’s important: The three biggest offenders got more severe sentences in the appeal, with the exception of a fine, dismissed.
It will be interesting to see how the AVP party reacts. With two sentences against him, will the former minister simply continue as party member? He is the only one who can renounce his seat in parliament, but the party can distance itself. How they react will be telling of how much the political mentality has shifted, or not, in the traditional parties…
Aruba still holds the record in the kingdom for the most ministers, ex-ministers convicted, under investigation etc.
The three convicted defendants now have a certain amount of time to decide if to appeal to an even higher court in the Netherlands. I heard the former minister post-sentencing interview vowing to continue to fight and appeal to his last breath. He reported great support and encouragement from voters and from his party. If he indeed appeals it could take another year for the case to drag on, meanwhile our elections are upcoming next year, it doesn’t look good for the AVP party to hug and hold a convicted parliamentarian.
What one of my friends says: It would not surprise me if Benny would be so hardheaded to take this to the Supreme Court in Holland; there he will get eight years, not just four. The judges in Holland will have no patience for these island politicians who have a history of being corrupt. He should have sat his six months. Now he will be years older and will have to sit more years. And Mike Eman and the AVP party shamelessly let him stay in the party and in Parliament. It would take the AVP party decades to rehabilitate its image.
What one of my sympathetic friends says: One would expect that with less accusations proven (with more people declared not guilty) the former minister would get less time, not more. So up to the Supreme Court we go, heading to the Netherlands.
What one of my sympathetic friends says: I feel sorry for the former minister and find the judgment harsh. Yes, he clearly played favorites with two cronies, who benefited through speculation with domain land and in other fashion. And yes, that is not correct. But that is something that had been going on in Aruba for over 50 years with both AVP and MEP. So it’s harsh if you only prosecute an AVP minister for this. I find the evidence that the former minister accepted an envelope filled with cash weak and not convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of first instance agreed with the defense on this point. Paying personal travel expenses from reelection campaign funds is not a serious offense that calls for criminal prosecution and jail time. So overall, I think the former minister got a raw deal.
What one of my friends said: I believe the first judge was deemed too lenient by the appeals court. The evidence of graft and corruption against the minister is very clear. The appeal court wants to send a loud signal to constituents and ministers to behave. Also the other former minister already doing time in jail, got 3 or 4 years at the same appeals’ court for lesser stuff and smaller amounts. So the verdict here is consistent with past practices of the court. Expect 3 to 4 years if you do personal business with Land Aruba.
What a media personality said: The attorneys of the four who were completely exonerated did an excellent job. They convinced the judges that their client’s actions were no different from how other similar cases were handled in the past. They presented compelling comparisons of past similar cases that were not punished or considered illegal, showing that their clients’ actions should not be labeled differently in this case. However, the other three suspects and their attorneys failed to convince the judges that their actions were not illegal and that they were just victims of misinformation. I also believe that the enormity of the case was too much for one judge to handle the first time. This time around, the task was divided among three judges, giving them more time and insight into the case. They sided completely with the prosecutor and upheld their first decision. Personally, I think this was a better approach. With three judges changing the verdict so dramatically, I doubt the next appeal will change anything. If I were Benny and the others, I would accept this ruling and move on.
What the last friend said: What an opportunity lost here. Had all these players been convicted and sentenced, that would have been a start for good governance.
