GREAT BAY--The Parliament of St. Maarten will turn its attention this Wednesday, August 12, to proposed Kingdom legislation that would govern extradition procedures for St. Maarten, Aruba and Curaçao.
The proposal is listed for discussion by Parliament’s Permanent Committee of Kingdom Affairs and Inter-Parliamentary Relations (CKAIR). The committee is responsible for matters concerning St. Maarten’s relationship within the Kingdom and interparliamentary cooperation.
The proposed Kingdom Act on Extradition for Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten, identified in the Dutch legislative process as Bill 36 925 (R2219), was submitted to the Dutch House of Representatives in April 2026. It would transfer the existing extradition rules contained in the Extradition Decree for Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten into a formal Kingdom Act.
The legislation is largely a legal restructuring rather than a completely new extradition system. According to the explanatory memorandum, most existing provisions are being transferred without major substantive changes. The move became necessary following a 2023 amendment to the Charter for the Kingdom that restricted the continued use of independent Kingdom administrative orders without a statutory basis.
Under the proposal, extradition from St. Maarten could only take place where an applicable treaty exists. For extradition to face criminal prosecution, the alleged conduct must generally constitute an offence under both the law of the requesting country and St. Maarten and carry the possibility of at least one year imprisonment. Extradition to enforce an existing sentence would generally require a custodial sentence of at least four months.
The legislation maintains several safeguards for persons facing extradition. Dutch nationals would generally not be extradited, although an exception could be made for prosecution if sufficient guarantees exist that any resulting prison sentence can be served in the person’s own country. Extradition would also be restricted in cases involving political offences, discriminatory prosecution, double prosecution for the same offence and circumstances in which extradition would cause exceptional hardship because of age or health.
The death penalty is another issue addressed by the proposal. Where the offence could result in a death sentence, extradition would only be permitted if the Governor is satisfied that sufficient guarantees exist that the death penalty would not be carried out.
That provision has already generated questions in the Dutch Parliament. Members of the GroenLinks-PvdA faction questioned whether extradition should be permitted at all when the death penalty could be imposed, even where assurances have been given that it will not be carried out. They questioned whether a subsequent administration in the requesting country could ultimately disregard such assurances.
The Governor of St. Maarten would continue to hold a central position in the extradition process.
Under the proposed system, the Common Court of Justice would first determine whether an extradition request is legally permissible. If the Court rules that extradition is not permissible, the Governor must reject the request. If the Court determines that extradition is permissible, it sends its ruling and advice to the Governor, who then decides whether to approve or refuse extradition under the applicable treaty and Kingdom law.
The Cabinet of the Governor of St. Maarten was among the institutions consulted during preparation of the legislation. Its advice resulted in adjustments to the explanatory memorandum, including clarification regarding the relationship between the proposed Kingdom Act and international treaty obligations, the existing division of authority and legal protection against extradition decisions taken by the Governor. The Dutch government maintains that the proposal is not intended to change the existing distribution of powers.
The Governor’s position has also drawn attention in the Dutch Parliament. Members of the CDA faction have requested further explanation concerning the Governor’s role, including whether sufficient support is available to the Governor during the extradition decision-making process and questions surrounding interaction with requesting foreign states.
Another protection contained in the proposal is the principle of speciality. A person who has been extradited generally cannot subsequently be prosecuted or punished for unrelated offences committed before extradition without the required consent. The legislation also includes protections for persons convicted in their absence, requiring that they had, or will have, sufficient opportunity to conduct their defense.
The Council of State of the Kingdom reviewed the proposal earlier this year and raised no substantive objections, advising that it be submitted to the Dutch Parliament and presented to the Parliaments of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten.
The bill has not yet completed the Dutch parliamentary process. The official legislative tracker currently lists both debate and voting as outstanding.
Wednesday’s CKAIR discussion therefore gives St. Maarten parliamentarians an opportunity to examine the proposed extradition framework, particularly its implications for legal protections, the authority of the Governor and the country’s position within a system of extradition law that would apply jointly to Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten.
