WILLEMSTAD – The controversy surrounding the work carried out by the Stichting Overheidsaccountantsbureau (SOAB), the Government’s Accountant Bureau, in 2023, as described in the control report of the Algemene Rekenkamer Curaçao (ARC) on the national accounts and annual report of the Land Curaçao, has escalated into a full-fledged public debate. What initially appeared to be a technical dispute over financial oversight has now evolved into a broader societal discussion about legality, governance and the boundaries of institutional authority.
In a detailed legal analysis submitted as an opinion piece, former Audit Chamber auditor drs. Luigi A. Faneyte argues that the assignments carried out by SOAB, as identified by the ARC, were not in accordance with the Landsverordening aanwijzing interne accountant SOAB 2015, the law that defines SOAB’s mandate as the government’s internal auditor.
Faneyte frames his analysis around a central question: are the assignments performed by SOAB, as described in the ARC’s report on the 2023 national accounts, consistent with the legal framework governing SOAB’s role? His answer is unequivocal. According to Faneyte, the work carried out by SOAB falls outside the scope of the law and therefore lacks a proper legal basis.
Under the Landsverordening aanwijzing interne accountant SOAB 2015, SOAB is designated exclusively as the internal auditor of the Curaçao government. The law defines its responsibilities in a restrictive and exhaustive manner. These include auditing financial management, legality and efficiency, reviewing annual accounts, supporting the setup and supervision of administrative and financial systems, conducting advisory and investigative assignments for government entities, and reporting findings to the responsible minister.
Crucially, the law does not provide a basis for SOAB to engage in operational or executive activities. According to Faneyte, this includes direct project execution, management of public funds, hands-on project administration, or acting as a substitute for line departments facing capacity shortages.
The ARC’s findings indicate that SOAB was involved in 2023 in activities such as managing project funds, providing administrative and organizational support, monitoring projects and strengthening operational capacity. Specific examples cited include involvement in housing projects for the public health service and the New Colon Maternity Clinic. Faneyte argues that these tasks go beyond permissible oversight or advisory roles and amount to operational financial management.
Such involvement, he contends, directly conflicts with SOAB’s position as an internal control body. By performing executive tasks, SOAB compromises its independence and undermines the very control function it is legally mandated to fulfill. The ARC itself classified this involvement as inconsistent with the Landsverordening Financieel Beheer and maintained its conclusions even after a formal process of hearing and response.
Faneyte also addresses the justifications put forward by both SOAB and the government. One argument cited is that the work fell under administrative and financial organization support, as allowed by the law. Faneyte rejects this interpretation, noting that the relevant provision authorizes supervision and system design, not hands-on fund management or project administration.
Another argument is that SOAB acted not as an internal auditor but as an external adviser. According to Faneyte, this distinction does not hold legally. The law does not recognize a separate advisory role for SOAB that would allow executive actions detached from its internal audit function. He further dismisses appeals to longstanding practice, emphasizing that administrative custom cannot replace or override statutory limits.
In his conclusion, Faneyte states that the assignments described by the ARC constitute a clear overreach of SOAB’s legal mandate. This overstep, he warns, has multiple consequences: it blurs institutional roles, weakens the independence of internal financial control, and results in legality issues under public financial law.
Faneyte’s analysis adds a legal dimension to an already heated debate between the government, SOAB and the Audit Chamber. As a former auditor of the Rekenkamer and current policy staff member for the PAR faction in the Curaçao Parliament, his assessment is likely to further intensify calls for clarity on the proper separation of roles within Curaçao’s financial oversight framework.
Whether this legal critique will lead to policy changes, legislative amendments or institutional reforms remains to be seen. What is clear is that the discussion has moved beyond technical accounting and into the heart of governance, accountability and the rule of law in Curaçao.
