Nelson Oduber supports Otmar Oduber but does not refute the basis of the verdict

ORANJESTAD — Former prime minister Nelson Oduber supports much of Otmar Oduber’s criticism of his conviction in the Flamingo case. In a post on his Facebook page, he questioned whether the same standards of justice are applied to politicians in Aruba and the Netherlands and warned against criminalizing political decisions. His arguments, however, do not undermine the main grounds of the verdict.

Nelson Oduber argues that Otmar is right to say a minister may depart from civil servants’ advice and that political influence also plays a role in public appointments in the Netherlands. But advice can still form part of the evidence in a criminal case, even when it is not binding, if there are indications that public power was used for an unlawful purpose or to benefit specific people.

According to publicly available information, the Court of Appeal did not convict Otmar Oduber simply because he ignored advice from DIP. The conviction also rests on abuse of office in the allocation of land, payments to two alleged “ghost employees,” and assistance given to a supporter to obtain a public-sector job outside regular procedures. At the same time, the court did not accept every allegation made by the Public Prosecution Service: it acquitted Otmar of defrauding the Country of Aruba in the Malmok case file.

Nelson Oduber’s comparison with political appointments in the Netherlands has some merit, but political influence, patronage, a lawful appointment and criminal corruption are not the same thing. His example of Camiel Eurlings does not refute the verdict either, since Eurlings’s appointment at KLM was a decision by its supervisory board, not a direct appointment by the Dutch government.

Nelson Oduber’s strongest point is his call for equality: the same integrity standards should apply throughout the Kingdom. But possible patronage in the Netherlands does not erase criminal responsibility in Aruba. The answer is greater transparency and oversight in every country, not less investigation in Aruba.

Otmar Oduber’s next legal step is cassation, not an entirely new appeal. The highest court will primarily examine whether the Court of Appeal applied the law correctly, gave sufficient reasons for its verdict and followed procedural rules. Until then, criticism is legitimate, but the debate should be grounded in what the court actually found proven.