For decades, the Stichting Overheids Accountants Bureau (SOAB) has stood as a symbol of integrity and transparency in Curaçao’s public administration. As the government’s official auditor and advisor, its role has been vital in ensuring that public funds are used responsibly and that the machinery of governance operates under the principles of accountability and good faith.
But recent developments and growing public unease suggest that this once-proud watchdog may be losing its bite. The SOAB, once seen as an independent guardian of fiscal probity, now faces mounting criticism for allegedly growing too close to the very government it is meant to oversee.
From Watchdog to Government Tool
The most troubling perception is that the SOAB has drifted from its core mission — from independent oversight to political convenience. Reports now appear to surface at moments that align neatly with the political calendar, raising uncomfortable questions about timing, motives, and neutrality.
If conclusions are being shaped, even subtly, to serve political ends, then the SOAB risks becoming less a watchdog and more a government instrument. The independence that once commanded public trust cannot coexist with the perception — or the reality — of political subservience.
The Vanishing Principle of “Hoor en Wederhoor”
Every credible investigation must respect the principle of hoor en wederhoor — hearing both sides. When reports rely solely on government information, they lose balance and credibility. A genuine auditing body must demonstrate the courage to pursue objectivity, even when the findings prove inconvenient to those in power.
Transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity for response are the cornerstones of public accountability. If the SOAB abandons these, its reports risk becoming political instruments rather than impartial analyses.
The Dangerous Grey Zone of Consultancy
Another area of growing concern is the SOAB’s dual role as both auditor and consultant. The institution appears to be taking on government consultancy assignments — often at high fees — while simultaneously maintaining its auditing authority. This overlap blurs the line between controller and contractor, creating an inherent conflict of interest.
An institution cannot simultaneously advise, supply, and audit the same client without compromising its independence. The very structure of this arrangement undermines the public’s confidence in the SOAB’s neutrality and the credibility of its findings.
An Eroding Mission
The SOAB’s founding mission — to safeguard financial integrity in public service — is at risk of erosion. As commercial and political considerations seep deeper into its work, the agency’s reputation for impartiality may be slipping away.
The trust that citizens, civil servants, and institutions once placed in the SOAB was built on the belief that it would hold everyone — including ministers, state-owned companies, and civil servants — to the same standard of transparency. That trust is fragile, and once broken, difficult to restore.
Accountability Is Not an Option
Curaçao needs strong, independent institutions now more than ever. The island’s social and economic challenges — from fiscal sustainability to governance reform — demand the steady hand of oversight bodies that operate above political influence.
The SOAB’s task is not to please, but to protect — not to echo government narratives, but to question them when necessary. Independence is not a luxury; it is the foundation of public confidence in democratic governance.
A watchdog that sleeps too close to power eventually loses its teeth — and with them, the trust of the very people it was created to serve.
If Curaçao is to preserve the integrity of its public institutions, then the SOAB must remember who it serves: not the government of the day, but the citizens whose money and trust sustain the nation.
