11/07/2025
Law for Non-Lawyers: Former Health Minister Omar Ottley gives Olivier Arrindell ANOTHER $100.000 spanking in the Dutch court of Appeal's.
This case was first tried in 2023. But this is the final March 2025 appeal.. Olivier Arrindell enjoys a good spanking!
🏛️ On March 19, 2025, the Joint Court of Justice delivered a verdict in a heated case from Sint Maarten. At its core lay a fundamental tension:
⚖️ Freedom of expression vs. protection of reputation.
This is the story of [Appellant], a citizen activist (or self-appointed public watchdog, depending on your lens), and [Respondent], a sitting Minister of Public Health, Social Affairs, and Labor.
One called the other corrupt. The other sued. The court, faced with defamation wrapped in free speech arguments, had to decide:
✅ Where do we draw the line between exposing corruption and tarnishing reputations without proof?
---
🎭 The Case in Brief
Here’s what happened:
[Appellant] shared videos on social media, mainly WhatsApp, accusing [Respondent] of being corrupt, a criminal, a money launderer, and a gangster involved in bribery, drugs, and fraud.
[Respondent] sued, demanding these statements be removed, a public correction issued, and a ban on future defamatory statements.
The lower court agreed with [Respondent], ordering removals and a correction. [Appellant] appealed, arguing his right to free speech and claiming he didn’t receive a fair trial due to language barriers at the first hearing.
---
💬 The Court’s Response to Free Speech Arguments
The appeal hearing was conducted entirely in English, with certified translators present. The court ruled:
✅ Fair trial was given – [Appellant] had full opportunity to defend himself in his own language.
✅ Freedom of speech is not absolute. The right to express opinions does not extend to unproven factual accusations that destroy someone’s reputation.
---
🔍 Key Evidence and Accusations Reviewed
1. The Arajet Bribery Claim
[Appellant] alleged [Respondent] received bribes from Arajet, a Dominican airline, for landing rights.
🔎 Court finding:
[Appellant] filed a criminal complaint about Arajet but presented no evidence of bribes.
He mentioned seeing an envelope in Santo Domingo but admitted he didn’t see it given to [Respondent].
✅ Result: No factual basis. Accusation dismissed.
---
2. The Three Houses and Money Laundering Allegation
[Appellant] claimed [Respondent] bought multiple properties with government funds and laundered money, stating:
> “You are corrupt. Just like your father. Your hands are sticky… bought three houses cash… must be money laundering.”
🔎 Court finding:
[Appellant] submitted documents like Ombudsman reports, cadastral extracts, and salary information requests.
None linked property purchases directly to stolen government money.
✅ Result: No factual basis. Accusation dismissed.
---
3. Drug Boat and Gangster Allegations
[Appellant] called [Respondent] a gangster, claiming he was on a boat full of drugs.
🔎 Court finding:
No supporting evidence in any of the filings.
✅ Result: No factual basis. Accusation dismissed.
---
📢 But It Was Just WhatsApp… Right?
[Appellant] argued his videos were private, sent only to “friends and family” via broadcast (max 256 contacts). The Court ruled:
✅ Whatsapp broadcasts = publication under defamation law, especially in small communities like Sint Maarten where:
Messages spread rapidly.
Recipients often forward to others.
Politics is everyone’s business.
---
⚖️ Balancing the Two Rights: How Courts Decide
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sets out clear factors:
🔹 Public figures tolerate harsher criticism than private citizens.
🔹 But accusations of crime require proof.
🔹 The public interest in exposure must outweigh the individual’s right to reputation.
In this case, despite [Appellant]’s passionate political activism, his lack of evidence tipped the scales heavily in [Respondent]’s favor.
---
🗣️ The Court’s Takeaway
> Freedom of expression carries duties and responsibilities, especially when attacking private individuals’ reputations.
– ECHR, Macovei v Romania (2020)
Or in layman’s terms:
💡 “Say what you want, but prove what you say.”
---
🤔 Why No Blanket Gag Order?
Interestingly, the Court refused to ban [Appellant] from future statements outright.
Here’s why:
🔎 Such bans are too broad.
🔎 Each statement must be judged based on context and evidence.
🔎 Future defamation remains actionable.
✅ This protects free speech while holding speakers accountable.
---
💡 Practical Lessons for the Public
1. Differentiate Opinion from Accusation
✔️ Opinion: “I think he’s incompetent.”
❌ Accusation: “He took bribes from Arajet.”
2. Questions Are Not Always Harmless
Repeated rhetorical questions implying guilt can amount to defamation.
3. WhatsApp is Not Private
Broadcasts = publication. Treat every share as potentially public.
🎭 The Court’s Final Orders (Plain English)
✅ Remove all offending statements from social media.
✅ Publish a correction stating the statements were untrue.
✅ Maximum penalty set at USD 100,000 for non-compliance.
✅ Pay legal costs: NAf 1,140.50 disbursements + NAf 6,000 attorney fees.
✅ No ban on future statements, but defame again and pay again.
---
📜 The Final Verdict: Free Speech Has Limits
This case is a powerful reminder for all:
🔔 Free speech is not free from consequence.
🔔 Public watchdogs play a vital role, but barking without proof becomes biting – and biting draws blood… and lawsuits.
---
🎤 Judicial Mic Drop
The Judges concluded:
✅ [Respondent]’s reputation was unfairly tarnished.
✅ [Appellant] failed to provide evidence for his claims.
✅ [Respondent] is entitled to protection and rectification.
🏁 Case Closed
Judgment rendered March 19, 2025, Joint Court of Justice, Sint Maarten.
✅ Yes, this case was an appeal.
Original judgment: November 24, 2023 (Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten).
Appeal filed: December 14, 2023.
Appeal hearing: January 13, 2025.
Appeal judgment delivered: March 19, 2025.
👉 In short, [appellant] (Arrindell) appealed the original summary judgment that had ordered him to remove and rectify his statements about [respondent] (Ottley). The Joint Court of Justice largely upheld the lower court’s ruling but modified the indefinite ban and capped the penalty sums.
🔎 Who appealed?
➡️ [Appellant] Olivier Arrindell appealed.
He was ordered by the Court of First Instance to remove and rectify his statements about [Respondent] Omar Ottley and wanted that judgment overturned.
---
🏆 Who won in the end?
➡️ [Respondent] Omar Ottley won.
✅ The Court of Appeal largely upheld the original judgment against Arrindell.
✅ Arrindell still has to pay – remove statements, publish correction, and now with a maximum penalty capped at USD 100,000 instead of indefinite fines.
✅ The only “win” for Arrindell was that the ban on all future statements was overturned as too vague and potentially infringing on freedom of speech.
---
⚖️ Bottom line:
Arrindell appealed, but Ottley still won – just with slight modifications in penalties and scope.
