PHILIPSBURG, Sint Maarten — Pro Soualiga wishes to remind the Parliament of St. Maarten that the right to self-determination is a peremptory norm from which derogation is not possible. Parliament, therefore, has the obligation to screen the COHO law in order to ensure that it does not violate St. Maarten’s right to self-determination.
Secondly, the International Court of Justice ruled that the “application of the right of self-determination requires a free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples concerned.” Parliament, therefore, has the obligation to ascertain whether or not our Prime Minister was able to exercise “free and genuine will” when she consented to the Consensus Kingdom Law. The court ruled that agreements entered into under threat or force cannot be considered an exercise of “genuine free will” and are therefore null and void.
Finally, Parliament has the obligation to screen the Kingdom Charter, on which COHO is based, in order to ensure that the Kingdom Charter does not violate St. Maarten’s right to self-determination. The Kingdom Charter must comply with peremptory norms of International Law.
A legal precedent was established on October 20, 2017, when the Kingdom Government annulled the so-called “80-20” Landsverordening passed by the Government and Parliament of Curacao because the law was “onrechtmatig”. It was found to be in conflict with International law, pursuant to Article 21 of the Reglement van de Gouverneur of Curacao. That decision creates an OBLIGATION for the Parliament of St. Maarten to test each and every piece of legislation including COHO for conflict with international laws and treaties. Pro Soualiga sincerely hopes that the Parliament of St. Maarten will comply with its obligations and therefore respectfully requests the Parliament of St. Maarten to adopt a motion suspending all treatment of the COHO law until such a time as the three abovementioned screenings have been carried out.