The Joint Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean Netherlands issued its ruling on September 17, 2026, in the criminal case known as “Flamingo.” The case involved three defendants and allegations of abuse of power, irregularities in the distribution of government land, the appointment of so-called ghost employees and preferential treatment for people connected to the political party POR.
The investigation focused on events that took place between 2017 and 2019, when Otmar Oduber served as Aruba’s minister of Spatial Planning, Infrastructure and Environment (ROIM). According to the court, Oduber used his position to place people he trusted in strategic roles within government departments. This allowed him to influence decisions, including the allocation of land to two people from his circle of acquaintances.
One of the co-defendants, Richinella Wever, obtained a position at the Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP) with Oduber’s help. The court found that Oduber instructed Wever to give priority to two acquaintances during the distribution of land. Wever was also found guilty of falsifying documents in connection with the process.
The defendants had been accused of defrauding the government of Aruba through these actions. However, the court acquitted them of that specific charge in relation to the land distribution. The court did find that Oduber had abused his official position.
Oduber was also convicted of defrauding the government and abusing his position by arranging for two people to be appointed as liaison officers. The court found that neither person had actually performed work for the government of Aruba. One of them worked for a company owned by Oduber’s son but was paid by the government.
In another part of the case, Oduber and co-defendant Aisha Esser were convicted of official bribery and abuse of power. The court found that they helped people loyal to the political party POR obtain government jobs while bypassing the required procedures.
The Joint Court reached different conclusions in some areas compared with the Court of First Instance of Aruba. As a result, the sentences also differed.
Oduber was sentenced to two years in prison without suspension. He was also banned from standing for public office and from holding a position as a civil servant for five years.
Esser was sentenced to 240 hours of community service. Wever was found guilty but was not given a sentence or other punishment.
The court described the proven offenses as serious crimes. It said Oduber, as a minister, had an important public role and was expected to meet the highest standards of conduct. The same applied to the two co-defendants, who were civil servants and were aware of the minister’s actions.
According to the court, the defendants showed a serious lack of awareness of the trust and responsibility placed in them by the government of Aruba. Their actions damaged the public’s trust in government and had a negative effect on society as a whole.
The court noted that the offenses took place several years ago, but said this did not reduce their seriousness. It did take into account that the legal proceedings had taken longer than the reasonable period allowed under case law.
The court also acknowledged that the case had significantly affected the lives of all three defendants. This was especially true for Oduber, who, as a public figure in a small community, faced extensive media attention. However, the court said these circumstances did not make a prison sentence inappropriate.
The court also emphasized the importance of general deterrence. It said the public must understand that conduct such as that proven in this case is unacceptable, particularly to protect the integrity of Aruba’s government and its civil service.
Regarding Wever, the court explained that the decision not to impose a sentence or other measure was linked to the fact that her offense was considerably less serious than the offenses involving the other defendants. The court also noted that she had acted on instructions and had objected to the minister’s conduct.
The defendants and the Public Prosecution Service have two weeks from the date of the rulings to file an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.
