‘Remark was meant satirical’

July 05, 2012 11:43 AM

ORANJESTAD — Prime Minister Mike Eman (AVP) made a ‘satiric and facetious remark’ when he accused Eduardo Croes, brother of MEP-leader Evelyn Wever-Croes during a recent interview, said the premier’s lawyer yesterday during summary proceedings in which Eduardo demanded a rectification.

He believes the premier had humiliated him as citizen in public and blackened his reputation with lies without reason and unsolicited.

Eduardo Croes wants the premier to rectify his remarks made in the interview of May 24th through radio station Top FM and TV stations TeleAruba and Canal 22. When visiting storekeepers on Caya Betico Croes, the premier said in the presence of the press that members of opposition party MEP could hardly be taken serious when they express their concerns about retailers in the center of Oranjestad ‘considering the former had left all buildings in the inner city in ruins’.

During the interview the premier said that the MEP-government took money from the people to enrich family members with rent while that money could have been used for maintenance of the inner city. Eman mentioned an aunt and an uncle from MEP-leader Evelyn Wever-Croes but also her brother Eduardo (although not by name). “Her brother constructed a building in Tanki Flip and before the first brick was laid, the rental contract was signed. They’ve got a lot of nerve to say they’re concerned about retailers in the inner city.”

The premier was represented by lawyer Charles van Esch and Eduardo Croes by attorney Anthony Ruiz. Van Esch stated that in this case it’s about the question whether the bounds of freedom of speech were exceeded in the political debate on the administrative integrity of the previous government. The debate discussed whether that integrity was injured or not with renting the buildings.

In that debate MEP-leader Evelyn rather stated that storekeepers in the inner city incur losses with the construction of the streetcar tracks and other modernization projects. Eman fielded this with the proposition that all of this work would have been unnecessary if the previous government hadn’t given preferential treatment to family members of office holders with rent. Many of these rental contracts were concluded with family members of the MEP-leader, according to the premier. In that respect, the remark about brother Eduardo, according to Van Esch, ‘a satiric and facetious one’, with the purpose to denounce ‘nepotism, conflict of interest and profiteering at the expense of the treasury’.

In his plea lawyer Ruiz stated that politician Eman had humiliated his client ‘a normal citizen and businessman’ unsolicited, made imputations and told lies about him without reason in public. According to the lawyer, the premier’s remarks were unnecessary because in that interview the journalist hadn’t asked questions about family members of MEP party-leader Croes renting buildings during the previous term of government.

Eduardo and even his children are bothered by Eman’s accusations, said Ruiz. Eduardo was repeated called ‘profiteer’ and ‘sinberguenza’ on the street. He therefore demands rectification of Eman’s allegation that he had schemed with his sister Evelyn or with the then premier Nelson Oduber and the previous government to rent an office building in Tanki Flip to the government. There are no facts that indicate there was a rental contract prior to the construction of the building, said Ruiz.

Eman pointed out a dubious role of his client, but according to the lawyer cannot produce any proof. During the summary proceedings Ruiz also mentioned the authoritative position of the premier and how a broad public believes his words. As an average person Eduardo Croes cannot match him, said his lawyer.

Both Ruiz and Van Esch refer to article 10 of the European Treaty of Human Rights (EVRM). According to Ruiz, the right to freedom of speech involves obligations and responsibilities, among others to protect the good name and rights of third parties. Van Esch replied that jurisprudence on article 10 of the EVRM protects against satire and facetious expressions. The premier’s remarks were in the framework of the public interest and not deliberately meant to tarnish the honor and good name of Eduardo Croes.

A decision on the case will be given on July 18th.

In this case Prime Minister Mike Eman was represented by lawyer Charles van Esch. Eduardo Croes was represented by attorney Anthony Ruiz of law firm Croes Wever Chong.