INVESTIGATION | Croes: “I did nothing wrong,” but private jet case still leaves three questions unanswered

ORANJESTAD – “I did nothing wrong.” With those words, Minister Gerlien Croes once again defended herself against MEP in the controversy surrounding the private aircraft that took her to Curaçao on November 19, 2025. But after nine months of debate, parliamentary questions, an LOB request and proceedings before the LAR, the issue is no longer simply whether Croes is obliged to show a receipt. The case has become a test of transparency, integrity and the extent to which Parliament can scrutinize a minister when an official trip intersects with expenses the minister considers private.

Croes’ position is clear. She maintains that she did nothing wrong, that no public money was involved in her personal payment and that MEP has no automatic right to demand an account of how she spends her own money. “MEP has been obsessed with me for nine months and is asking me for a receipt that I have no obligation whatsoever to give them,” Croes said in a public reaction Monday night on her Facebook page. According to the minister, MEP is “continuously trying to damage my image as if I had done something wrong.”

But that defense addresses only part of the problem.

THE QUESTION THAT STARTED IT ALL: WHO PAID?

The controversy began after a work trip Croes made to Curaçao in a private jet in November 2025.

MEP demanded clarity on three points: whether Croes paid for the flight, how much she paid and to whom the payment was made.

According to MEP parliamentarians, Croes initially indicated that she had paid for the trip herself, while later she spoke of sharing costs. That difference prompted the opposition to demand documentary proof. Croes, for her part, rejects the suggestion that a change in wording means something irregular occurred.

In her most recent response, the minister said that landing-related costs in Curaçao do not exceed approximately Afl. 1,000 and that sharing such costs is permitted.

But this is precisely where the case becomes more complicated.

If the minister paid or shared costs, the question is exactly what that payment covered and to whom it was made.

If there was no payment for the transportation itself, the next question is whether that transportation could constitute a benefit or facility provided to a public officeholder.

Neither scenario, by itself, proves that an illegal act took place. But both are enough to make transparency relevant.

MEP MOVED FROM POLITICAL QUESTIONS TO LEGAL PROCEDURE

The important point is that MEP did not stop at questions in Parliament.

Evelyn Wever-Croes and Rocco Tjon used the Landsverordening Openbaarheid van Bestuur, LOB, to formally request documentation related to the trip. After that process did not produce the information they were seeking, the matter reached the LAR Commission.

On July 10, 2026, the LAR Commission confirmed that its advice in the case had been sent to the minister. The procedure provides for a six-week period in which a new decision must be taken on the request. That changed the nature of the dispute.

It is no longer simply MEP shouting from the opposition benches: “Show the receipt.”

There is now a formal administrative procedure that the government has to handle.

That is particularly sensitive because the AVP-FUTURO Cabinet itself included in its governing agreement the intention to strengthen the functioning of the LAR and respect its procedures within the stipulated time limits.

EVELYN AND ROCCO: PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT OR INTERFERENCE IN PRIVATE LIFE?

Croes personalized the debate in her response. “MEP is in Parliament to monitor the people’s money. Since when do I have to account to ‘Evelyn and Rocco’ for what I paid with my own money?” the minister asked.

With that, Croes presents an argument that carries political weight: Parliament has the right to scrutinize public money, but a minister does not lose every right to privacy simply because she holds public office. MEP’s argument, however, is different.

They are not presenting the matter as an investigation into all of Croes’ personal spending. They argue that the expense in question is directly connected to an official trip she made as a minister.

And that distinction is precisely the core of the case:

Can an expense be considered entirely private if it enables the transportation of a minister to an official engagement?

That question still has no simple answer.

EDGARD VROLIJK CHANGED THE BATTLEGROUND

Parliamentarian Edgard Vrolijk added another element to the case: the government’s administrative obligations.

According to Vrolijk, after parliamentary questions and the LOB request, it is not acceptable for the matter to remain unresolved. He announced that if no decision is taken within the applicable period, the parliamentarians are considering going to court.

That is important because if the case actually reaches a judge, the discussion could move from the political arena to a concrete legal question:

What information is the minister required to provide, and what information may she regard as private?

Such a ruling could have implications far beyond Gerlien Croes’ flight.

It could establish a precedent for future cases in which a public officeholder uses personal funds during official activity.

MEP’S MOST SERIOUS ALLEGATION

MEP has also raised questions about the commercial status of the aircraft and whether the aircraft was legally allowed to charge for the flight. The party has presented legal opinions and argued that if commercial payment was not permitted, the explanation involving payment creates another problem; while if no payment took place, the question becomes whether the flight should be considered a benefit.

A distinction is essential here.

These are allegations and legal interpretations presented by MEP. They are not a judicial finding that Croes violated the law.

At this point, there is not enough public evidence to state that Croes committed a criminal offense simply on the basis of the controversy.

But the integrity question does not disappear merely because illegality has not been demonstrated.

Public integrity also concerns avoiding the appearance of conflict, documenting benefits and allowing effective scrutiny when a public officeholder acts in an official capacity.

MIKE EMAN’S ROLE

Mike Eman is not the protagonist, but he cannot be kept completely outside the matter either. Prime Minister Mike Eman is not the direct protagonist in the jet affair. But Gerlien Croes is not just any minister in his Cabinet.

Croes is leader of FUTURO, deputy prime minister and an essential political partner in the AVP-FUTURO coalition.

That inevitably makes the matter a problem for the government as well.

As the case continues, Eman has to balance two interests: maintaining coalition stability and demonstrating that the government applies standards of transparency and integrity even when the questions concern a member of its own Cabinet.

If the matter escalates to court, pressure on the prime minister to state an institutional position could increase.

THE RECEIPT IS NO LONGER THE MAIN ISSUE

Politically, this is probably the most important point.

An apparently simple receipt has become the symbol of a much larger problem.

If Croes provides proof of payment and the documentation confirms her version, she could remove an important part of the political suspicion.

But the documentation could also generate new questions: exactly what did she pay for, to whom, under what conditions and for what service?

If she does not provide the information, MEP can continue arguing that the minister is avoiding transparency.

Croes is therefore in a difficult political position: providing information could open new questions; withholding it keeps suspicion alive.

THREE QUESTIONS THAT STILL NEED ANSWERS

After nine months, all the political noise can be reduced to three relatively simple questions:

Who paid for the flight, and how much?

If Croes paid or shared costs, exactly which costs did she pay and to whom?

If part of the transportation was not paid for, what was the nature of the facility provided to the minister and which integrity rules apply?

There is now a fourth question that is becoming almost as important:

What information is a minister required to provide when personal expenditure and public office intersect?

That is the question that could eventually reach the courts.

MEP MAY BE PLAYING POLITICS, BUT THAT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE QUESTION

Croes may be right that MEP is exploiting the case politically. It is the opposition; naturally it will use an issue that could affect a minister’s credibility.

But the political motive of the accuser does not determine whether the question itself is valid.

Likewise, MEP’s insistence does not prove that Croes did anything wrong.

Both things can be true at the same time: MEP can have a political interest in keeping the case alive, while the government still has an obligation to provide enough clarity for the public to determine whether anything irregular occurred.

And after nine months, that is probably the most damaging aspect of the entire affair.

Not necessarily the cost of the flight.

Not necessarily who was on the aircraft.

But the fact that a question that appeared relatively easy to answer has passed through Parliament, LOB and LAR, and is still producing more conflict than clarity.

Croes says: “I did nothing wrong.”

It is a strong statement.

But in public governance, trust does not depend only on asserting that nothing wrong happened.

Trust is strengthened when documentation allows the public to verify that.