WILLEMSTAD – The Algemene Rekenkamer Curaçao (ARC) and the Stichting Overheidsaccountantsbureau (SOAB) are sharply divided over whether work carried out by SOAB for the government was lawful. While the Audit Chamber classifies the assignment of tasks as unlawful, SOAB insists it acted fully within its statutory mandate and argues that the ARC is relying on an incorrect legal assumption.
The dispute arises in the context of the ARC’s review of the 2023 national accounts of the Country of Curaçao. According to the Audit Chamber, assignments were given to SOAB that were incompatible with its designated role as the government’s internal auditor and that also conflicted with the public financial law framework. The ARC maintains this conclusion even after reviewing SOAB’s formal response.
SOAB has firmly rejected that assessment. In an extensive written rebuttal, the foundation states that it did not perform the contested activities in its capacity as internal auditor, but rather as a support and advisory organization in the fields of financial management, business economics, and administrative and organizational processes.
According to SOAB, this advisory and support role is explicitly embedded in its statutes, which allow the foundation to provide such services to governments and institutions with a public interest. The organization further emphasizes that it had no decision-making authority over public funds and that all financial decisions remained under ministerial responsibility.
On that basis, SOAB argues that there was no financial management as defined under the National Ordinance on Public Finance. As a result, the designation “unlawful” cannot, in its view, be sustained either legally or factually and should be removed from the Audit Chamber’s report.
The ARC, however, continues to stand by its findings. It states that its assessment is not limited to SOAB’s statutes alone, but concerns the broader system of financial management and oversight within government. From that perspective, the Audit Chamber considers it problematic that an entity appointed as internal auditor is simultaneously deployed for executive and advisory work within ministries, without the assignment being clearly embedded within the applicable public law framework.
Implications for ministers
The confrontation between the Audit Chamber and SOAB directly touches on ministerial responsibility. The core of the ARC’s criticism is aimed less at SOAB itself and more at the way in which ministers have issued and justified assignments.
If the classification of “unlawful” remains in place, it would mean that ministers may have engaged external support in violation of budgetary and public finance rules, even if that support fell within SOAB’s statutory objectives. In such a case, ministers cannot rely solely on SOAB’s statutory mandate, but must also demonstrate that the assignment complied with the financial and legal framework governing the Country.
The issue is increasing pressure on the government to provide clarity on the precise delineation of SOAB’s role and on how external expertise is commissioned, managed, and accounted for within ministries.