The government suffered a formal setback Thursday afternoon when a judge ruled that the Minister of Justice cannot ban e-steps, e-bikes, and scooters from public roads without further process. At least not until the main case, where e-step companies get their day in court, is heard. Many see this as a slap in the face of the minister. However, the question should not be whether the minister was embarrassed, but rather who—or what—is to blame for letting the case get this far. Was this issue a priority? More priority than, for example, removing vagrants from the streets who cause harassment or theft?
Regarding the e-step issue, the law is very clear: these devices cannot be on public roads, including public sidewalks. There is no law that permits this. Therefore, the police had all the authority to act and did not do so. Who is at fault here? The minister, the police, or the police chief? The legal situation is quite clear: e-steps and similar devices have no legal basis to circulate on public roads in Aruba.
However, this is where theory and practice separate. For months—or more—these devices were visible everywhere: Palm Beach, Eagle Beach, and the main road. Businesses invested, tourists used them freely, and the police did not enforce the rules consistently. The government itself acknowledged that the problem “went too far without sufficient intervention.”
This is exactly the most delicate legal point: when a law is not enforced for a long time, it can create what is known in administrative law as gedogenbeleid—de facto tolerance. While gedogenbeleid is not a formal law in Aruba, the concept is recognized in legal practice, especially in the Dutch Kingdom. For the government, the lesson is clear. It is not enough to have laws. Laws must be enforced consistently, or they must be adapted to reality. Otherwise, every strong action taken afterward will face resistance—not just political, but also legal.
Discussion about this post