WILLEMSTAD – The controversy surrounding the former Minister of Finance's decision to write off approximately XCG 3.2 billion in outstanding tax assessments has resurfaced after Curaçao's Court of Audit confirmed that a parliamentary motion adopted in September 2024 had no legal effect and could not retroactively legitimize the minister's actions.
In a press statement issued on October 14, opposition party PAR said the Court of Audit had once again addressed the matter during a Central Committee meeting of the Curaçao Parliament on October 7.
According to PAR parliamentary leader Quincy Girigorie, the Court of Audit reiterated that the former minister's decision lacked a proper legal basis. More importantly, the institution explained that Parliament's subsequent attempt to approve the measure through a motion did not resolve the underlying legal problem.
On September 24, 2024, Parliament adopted a motion intended to ratify the minister's decision concerning approximately XCG 3.2 billion in outstanding tax assessments.
However, according to the explanation cited by PAR, a parliamentary motion cannot substitute for the legal authority required to cancel or write off tax claims.
Girigorie said he specifically asked the Court of Audit about the legal consequences of the motion during the October 7 meeting.
The Court of Audit reportedly responded that the motion was legally ineffective, using the Dutch term "nietig," meaning null and void.
This means, according to PAR, that the parliamentary motion did not cure the legal defects associated with the original ministerial decision.
Girigorie also pointed out that both the Council of Advice and the Social and Economic Council (SER) had raised concerns about the legal basis of the measure as early as 2024.
The dispute raises fundamental questions about the limits of ministerial authority and Parliament's ability to approve government decisions after they have already been implemented.
Although Parliament has legislative and oversight responsibilities, the Court of Audit's position, as presented by PAR, is that a political motion cannot independently provide the statutory authorization required for an otherwise unlawful administrative action.
The opposition party argues that the matter remains unresolved despite the passage of more than two years since Parliament adopted the controversial motion.
PAR has called for greater accountability over the original decision and the subsequent parliamentary effort to legitimize it.
The party's statement does not identify a new government measure that would provide a lawful resolution to the issue.
The XCG 3.2 billion figure refers to the value of the tax assessments involved in the disputed decision. The statement does not establish that the entire amount would otherwise have been collectible or that the Treasury suffered an equivalent immediate cash loss.
Nevertheless, the legal controversy remains significant because it concerns the government's authority to discontinue the collection of public tax claims and the constitutional limits of parliamentary intervention.