PHILIPSBURG, Sint Maarten — President of the The United St. Maarten Party (USP) board Cecil Nicholas said his board was baffled by Thursday’s public meeting of Parliament which dealt with the suspension of MP Claudius Buncamper, dubbing the meeting “amusing”.
“Today’s meeting which should have been opened and closed without fan fear because the law is clear, was turned into a circus with legislators basically elucidating on the interpretation of the law. Are the legislators not supposed to present proposed amendments to the law?” Nicholas said.
“What should have been addressed today is how the declaration of Independence by MPs circumvents proportional representation based on the party list, since the execution of the letter of the Attorney General now nullifies the notion that MPs own the seat based on the oath they take.
What is the spirit of the law with regards to application of proportional representation in accordance with the party list? Does the oath circumvent the party platform and manifesto as it relates to the vision for the country that is sold to the people during election campaigns? If the seat belongs to individual candidates, then why does the law now reflect back to the party as opposed to the affected MP now appointing his own substitute as an independent member of parliament?” Nicholas continued.
He added that while parliament without question accepted the “nullification of the US party and its list with a declaration of independence, the highest legislative body in the country is now awaiting another instruction, this time from the electoral council of who will be the representative member of the same USP in Parliament. “Which they have to accept without question, outside of having new elections,” Nicholas said.
“So the same laws that cast the party aside, also acknowledges the primary position of the party as the foundation of the basis of the seats in Parliament. The United St. Maarten Party found itself in a similar predicament when its two seats won in an election unceremoniously transitioned with declarations of independence on the floor of parliament based on the same impractical laws.”
“The highest legislative body in the country in its public meeting today displayed why there is no room for an individualistic approach to governing based on an oath. As they await another instruction, the constitution as constructed since 10 10 10 continues to cannibalize itself,” Nicholas conclude.
