Aruba’s former minister of Spatial Planning, Infrastructure and Environment, Otmar Oduber, has been sentenced to two years in prison in the Flamingo case. The Joint Court of Justice issued the appeal ruling on September 17, 2026.
According to 24Ora’s report on the ruling, the case concerned conduct from 2017 to 2019 involving government land, public appointments and people connected to the political party POR.
What the court found in the Flamingo case
The court found that Oduber used his ministerial position to influence government decisions. This included helping trusted people obtain strategic roles and directing that two acquaintances receive priority in the allocation of government land.
The defendants were acquitted of defrauding Aruba’s government in relation to the land allocations. The court nevertheless found that Oduber abused his official position in that part of the case.
The ruling also found that Oduber arranged government appointments for two liaison officers who did not perform work for the government. One of the two worked for a company owned by Oduber’s son while receiving government pay. The court convicted Oduber of fraud against the government and abuse of office in connection with those appointments.
Oduber and co-defendant Aisha Esser were also convicted of official bribery and abuse of power. The court found that they helped POR supporters obtain government jobs without following the required procedures.
Sentences for the three defendants
Oduber received an unconditional two-year prison sentence. He was also barred for five years from standing for public office or holding a civil-service position.
Esser was sentenced to 240 hours of community service. Co-defendant Richinella Wever was found guilty of falsifying documents connected to the land process, but the court imposed no sentence or other punishment on her. The court considered her conduct less serious and noted that she had acted on instructions while objecting to the minister’s actions.
In explaining the sentences, the court emphasized the responsibility carried by public officials and the damage that misconduct can cause to trust in government. It also considered the age of the offenses, delays in the legal proceedings and the personal impact of the case on the defendants.
Two-week window for a cassation appeal
The defendants and the Public Prosecution Service have two weeks from the date of the rulings to seek cassation review by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. The September 17 decision followed earlier Flamingo case proceedings and changed some findings and sentences reached by Aruba’s Court of First Instance.
Update — October 1, 2026: The Partido Patriotico Arubano (PPA) has publicly declared its support for Otmar Oduber’s cassation appeal to the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), following the recent Court of Appeal verdict in the criminal case against the political leader.
PPA president Eddie Bennett said the party’s board held a direct conversation with Oduber to evaluate the situation and reiterate its firm support. Bennett explained that the party gave Oduber space and time to make his decision, which ultimately resulted in the step of appealing to the Supreme Court of Cassation in the Netherlands in pursuit of justice in line with the principles of the rule of law.
Bennett emphasized that the PPA always respects the institutions of the rule of law and the rulings of the Court of Appeal as an institutional and democratic obligation — but clarified that respecting a verdict does not mean a person or party must give up the right to disagree with the conclusions of a ruling.
“We are not asking for privilege, we are not asking for impunity. We are defending a fundamental principle of any democratic society: that every person has the right to defend themselves, to legally question a decision, and to ensure their case is handled according to the guarantees the law establishes,” Bennett said (translated from Papiamento).
According to Bennett, the PPA’s support rests on three key elements that should not be confused: respect for justice and the judicial organs; the legal right of defense to seek a just decision; and the political position of the leader and the party.
The party also pointed to Oduber’s electoral backing: in the December 2024 election he won 2,419 personal votes — the most of any PPA candidate — out of the 3,538 total votes that returned the party to the Parliament of Aruba after 20 years of absence.
Bennett asked that Oduber’s case not be compared with those of other politicians investigated or convicted for other types of crimes. “Otmar did not steal,” he stated, explaining that the ruling did not determine that Oduber stole or benefited himself financially, but that the case concerns administrative actions during his tenure — making the situation substantially different and the choice of cassation legitimate.
Bennett concluded that the PPA will follow the next phases of the process closely and will keep its supporters and the people of Aruba duly informed in a responsible manner.
Source: 24ora
Update — October 1, 2026: Otmar Oduber’s defense team has announced it disagrees with the ruling of the Joint Court of Justice (Hof) and supports taking the case to cassation before the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (Hoge Raad).
According to the defense, a detailed analysis of the ruling highlighted several critical points showing that the legal decision is incomplete and contains substantial flaws. The disagreement rests on three main arguments: the Court did not address the details of all defense points presented and failed to explain why it chose not to take them into account; certain pieces of evidence from the case file were used even though other evidence in the same file proves the exact opposite; and the Court concluded there was sufficient evidence for a conviction without explaining and substantiating the reasoning behind that conclusion.
One of the most noticeable flaws, according to the defense, is that the Court relied almost exclusively on the investigation and case file of the National Detective Service (Landsrecherche), without giving due weight to the statements of more than 25 witnesses who were questioned and directly contradicted the official version. In several instances, the initial interrogations by the Landsrecherche lacked clarity; when these witnesses appeared before the Examining Judge (Rechter-Commissaris), they clarified their statements, showing that the Landsrecherche notes were inaccurate or had been misinterpreted. The defense considers the Court’s decision to ignore these clarifications a major and unusual flaw in the administration of justice.
After Oduber made the personal decision to file for cassation, his legal team gave it full support. Although the cassation process requires a specialized attorney in the Netherlands, the preliminary evaluation indicates clear legal errors that must be reviewed. The role of the Hoge Raad in cassation is not to re-evaluate the facts or evidence, but purely to verify whether the Court of Appeal applied the law correctly and whether the ruling was adequately and logically reasoned. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the defense and overturns the sentence, the case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal for retrial.
Source: EA News Aruba
Update — October 1, 2026: In a further elaboration on the case against former minister Otmar Oduber, the defense has highlighted flaws in the Court of Appeal (Hof) ruling and alleged a premeditated prosecution, expressing deep concern about the motivation and manner in which justice authorities from the Netherlands — including the Anti-Corruption Team (TBO), judges, prosecutors and investigators — handle criminal investigations in Aruba and the Dutch Caribbean.
According to the defense’s analysis, justice personnel sent from the Netherlands arrive with a fixed perception or goal: the perception that the islands harbor a “band of robbers” and that their mission is to catch politicians and citizens. This posture means that instead of conducting a neutral investigation, the authorities come looking to confirm an existing suspicion.
The Oduber case is presented as a clear example of this dynamic. The investigation began with the gravest suspicions — a criminal organization, the laundering of millions of florins through foreign accounts, and illegal land deals. However, after two years of intensive investigation, no evidence was found for those initial accusations brought by the Public Prosecution Service (OM). Instead of closing the case and acknowledging that the main suspicions had not been proven, the authorities changed the focus of the investigation, seeking other routes and minor details to still prosecute the person.
The defense also points to the financing structure: organizations such as the TBO are funded by a special fund in the Netherlands designated exclusively for these cases. This creates pressure, the defense argues, under which investigators cannot simply say “we found nothing and we are stopping the prosecution,” since they must justify their presence and the resources invested.
The analysis concludes that applying such strict criteria — where any administrative error, such as filing a tax return (BBO or income tax) late, is used to prosecute a person criminally — creates an unrealistic standard for any citizen or politician. If a person must be completely “perfect” in every aspect of life to avoid prosecution, the result would be that Aruba is left without capable political leaders to serve the country — while, at the same time, the Netherlands does not look in its own mirror.
Source: EA News Aruba
Source: 24Ora — “Former minister sentenced to two years in prison in Flamingo case”
