In less than a week, the recusal chamber reached a decision on the government’s request to remove Judge van de Leur from the Isla di Oro case. The request was rejected as it was concluded that there was no reason for it.
It was on April 5th that the government, during the handling of a summary case, verbally recused the judge. Immediately, the clerk drew up the statement. The judge sent his written response on April 8th, stating that he did not accept the request. This was dealt with on the same day in the recusal chamber.
This petition was discussed with the government’s lawyer present, and in the courtroom, a representative of the Aruba National Park Foundation (FPNA) was present, namely lawyer Arendsz-Marchena; J.O.B. Holding & Management V.B.A. represented by Mr. Anthony Ruiz, and Aruba Youth for Ocean, Aruba Turtle Foundation, Conservation and Protection Foundation, and Aruba Birdlife. The recused judge himself was not present for the proceedings.
It was explained that the government’s petition came after the judge experienced several times where the government had made decisions against the law. This led the government’s lawyer to claim that the judge was biased. The recusal chamber concluded that there was no evidence of impartiality lacking on the part of the judge. The statement made by the judge was of a general nature.
If the government and all its departments stick to the law, then in every case against the government, any objection or appeal would be declared baseless. It is common knowledge that this is not the case. Therefore, this remark by the judge is not a bias in the merit of this case. This mentioned reason is why the government’s request to recuse Judge van de Leur was rejected.
