๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐ญ๐๐ญ๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ - ๐๐๐ซ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ฌ๐
PHILIPSBURG, Sint Maarten โ August 1, 2026
Over the past several days, there has been considerable public discussion about early release, electronic monitoring, and one particular case that has received significant public attention. That discussion has raised genuine questions about how release from prison actually works in Sint Maarten. Unfortunately, it has also been accompanied by misconceptions and, in some instances, statements that simply do not reflect the law.
Much of the attention has focused on whether one particular individual should be released. The legal question, however, is whether the law makes that individual eligible for release. If the law does not, then neither public opinion nor the Minister has the authority to change that.
The law establishes an order that applies equally to every inmate. Releasing one individual before the law permits, or ahead of others entitled to be considered under that legal order, would not be equal treatment. It would replace an objective legal process with a subjective decision based on one individual case. That is precisely what the law was designed to prevent.
Answering that question requires an understanding of the legal framework that applies equally to every person serving a prison sentence in this country. The starting point is simple: the Minister of Justice cannot simply decide who leaves prison and when.
A prison sentence is imposed by a judge. My job is to see that it is carried out, the same way, in the same order, for every person serving a sentence in this country. I cannot shorten a sentence. I cannot grant time off because someone has asked well, because one case has attracted greater public attention than another, or because one set of circumstances appears more compelling than another. Those forms of ministerial discretion no longer exist. They were deliberately abolished when the current Criminal Code came into force because they were unwritten, inconsistent, and open to suspicion.
What remains is one narrow power, exercised only when the prison faces an acute shortage of capacity and then only in the order the law itself fixes. There is a reason the law is structured this way. The moment release depends on judgments about who deserves it more, it depends on somebody's opinion rather than the law. Then everyone left behind is entitled to ask whose opinion, and why. The law is deliberately structured to prevent that.
For most inmates, the position is straightforward. Conditional release becomes possible after two-thirds of a sentence has been served. That is the earliest point at which release may be considered; it is not a guarantee that release will occur. It remains conditional and subject to the requirements established by law.
Where the prison faces an acute shortage of capacity, the law provides a mechanism to relieve overcrowding. That measure does not exist for a particular inmate, nor is it something an individual can apply for. It is a general measure intended to address a capacity problem affecting the prison as a whole.
Even then, the order of release is not determined by the seriousness of an offense, by who has the least time remaining on a sentence, or by who receives the greatest public attention. It is determined by one objective standard: how much of each person's own sentence has been completed as a proportion of that sentence.
This often surprises people because it is not how we naturally compare cases. Yet it is precisely what makes the system fair. A person serving four years and a person serving twelve years cannot sensibly be compared by the number of years remaining. They can be compared by the proportion of the sentence each has completed. That is the one standard capable of being applied equally to every inmate without requiring subjective judgments about who deserves release first.
Questions have also been raised about electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring is not an alternative to imprisonment, nor is it a separate pathway to release. It is a supervisory measure that may be attached to a special condition of a lawful conditional release. It cannot replace a prison sentence or create eligibility where the law does not.
This is also why comparisons between individual cases can be misleading. Different sentence lengths, different periods of pre-trial detention, and different legal circumstances all affect where an individual stands under the law. Looking at one percentage, one release date, or one individual in isolation rarely tells the full story.
Finally, these decisions are not beyond review. Where someone believes the law has been applied incorrectly, the courts provide the proper avenue to challenge that decision. That safeguard exists because decisions affecting liberty should ultimately be tested before an independent judge.
I know that imprisonment is difficult for families, and that wanting someone home sooner is entirely human. I do not dismiss that. But the law asks me to apply the same rules to every person serving a sentence in Sint Maarten, in the same order, whatever the name attached to the file.
Public confidence in our justice system cannot depend on whether every decision is popular. It must depend on the assurance that the same law is applied equally, consistently, and without preference. That is the responsibility entrusted to me, and it is one I will continue to uphold.
๐๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ซ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐
๐๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐. ๐๐๐๐ค๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐
