The controversy surrounding Curaçao’s online gaming sector is entering a critical phase. The announcement by Minister of Finance Charles Cooper that an investigation will be launched into an annual payment of ANG 8.3 million by the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA) to a private company linked to an individual in Malta has opened a much broader discussion about transparency, accountability and the management of public funds.
However, if the investigation is serious, it cannot stop with one company or one individual.
The public deserves the complete picture.
The question that must now be asked is: why focus only on one payment when there are indications that other companies connected to the online gaming licensing system have also received significant amounts through arrangements involving the CGA?
The discussion cannot become a selective investigation. It must examine the entire structure that was created under the new gaming framework and determine exactly how public money flows, who receives it, what services are provided in return, and whether those payments are reasonable and justified.
Curaçao has been told for years that the reform of the online gaming sector would bring transparency, better supervision and significant financial benefits for the country. The introduction of the Landsverordening op de Kansspelen (LOK) was presented as a turning point: government would regain control over licensing, strengthen oversight and ensure that revenues would benefit the people of Curaçao.
That promise created expectations. Many citizens were told that gaming revenues could help finance important social priorities, including a possible increase of the AOV pension. That is why every guilder generated by this sector must be managed with the highest level of transparency.
If ANG 8.3 million is being paid annually to one company, the public has the right to know what that company does, what expertise it provides and why such a substantial payment is necessary. But the same questions must be asked about every other company receiving significant payments connected to the gaming sector.
Who are the owners? Where are these companies located? What contracts were signed? Were there public selection procedures? What concrete services were delivered? How were these services evaluated?
These are not political questions. They are basic questions of good governance.
The current debate has unfortunately also turned into a political confrontation between members of the same party. A Minister of Finance and a Member of Parliament from MFK are now publicly challenging each other over a matter that concerns public trust and the handling of government-related revenues. This situation creates confusion and raises questions about internal communication and responsibility within the party.
At the same time, Member of Parliament Javier Silvania continues to state that he remains loyal to MFK and that his criticism is aimed at protecting the online gaming sector and ensuring that Curaçao receives the maximum benefit from it. Minister Cooper, meanwhile, has stated that the investigation must determine the facts surrounding the payments and arrangements.
The solution is not political accusations. The solution is transparency.
An investigation that only examines one payment risks creating more questions than answers. The public does not need a partial picture; it needs the full story.
The investigation must therefore continue until all relevant financial flows are clear. Every company, every contract and every payment structure connected to the online gaming sector must be reviewed.
Curaçao cannot build public trust with incomplete answers. The people deserve to know where the money goes, who benefits from it and whether the country is receiving fair value in return.
The investigation must follow the money trail wherever it leads. Only then can Curaçao truly say that the online gaming sector is working in the interest of the country and its citizens.