ORANJESTAD, Aruba — HOFA Constitutional Concerns have returned to the centre of public debate after Fundacion SIKI President Jayburtt Dijkhoff argued that the proposed financial-supervision framework could interfere with Aruba’s constitutional autonomy.
Speaking during an interview with Matutino DIARIO, Dijkhoff referred to objections raised by Aruba’s Council of Advice regarding the proposed Kingdom Act on Sustainable Public Finances for Aruba, commonly known as HOFA.
He characterised the proposed arrangement as an “attack on our own Constitution” because it would require Kingdom-level approval before Aruba could make certain changes to its own financial legislation.
The statement represents Dijkhoff’s interpretation of the legal advice and should not be reported as a definitive judicial conclusion.
What the HOFA Proposal Would Do
HOFA is intended to establish fiscal standards for Aruba and continue temporary financial supervision through the Kingdom Council of Ministers.
The framework is connected to a separate Aruban ordinance called the Landsverordening waarborging houdbare overheidsfinanciën. That national ordinance would contain details such as the numerical targets for Aruba’s debt ratio, primary balance and financial reserve.
The two governments agreed in 2024 to replace the existing temporary supervision system with a combination of a consensus Kingdom Act and Aruban legislation.
The proposed framework could also give Aruba access to loans at favourable Dutch interest rates and allow part of the island’s foreign debt to be refinanced.
Council of Advice Raised Serious Objections
Aruba’s Council of Advice reviewed the proposal under reference RvA 13-26 and formally adopted its opinion on April 24, 2026.
The Council expressed serious concerns about Article 38, which would prevent Aruba’s government from presenting, changing or approving parts of the associated national ordinance without prior approval from the Kingdom Council of Ministers.
The Council also criticised the stage at which its advice was requested, saying the timing limited its ability to influence the Kingdom legislative process effectively.
Dijkhoff argues that this arrangement allows another country within the Kingdom structure—primarily the Netherlands—to determine what Aruba may include in its own legislation.
He believes that transferring such authority should require a clearer democratic mandate from the Aruban population.
Kingdom Council Recognises Autonomy Concerns
The Kingdom’s Council of State later reviewed the proposal and acknowledged that public finances are an autonomous responsibility of Aruba.
It explained that countries within the Kingdom can voluntarily cooperate on autonomous matters through Article 38 of the Charter for the Kingdom. Genuine agreement between the participating countries is therefore essential.
The Council of State accepted that prior Kingdom approval could be used to prevent either side from unilaterally changing the agreed fiscal targets.
It noted that Aruba could not change those numerical standards without Kingdom approval, but the Kingdom Council of Ministers also could not change them without the cooperation of Aruba’s government and Parliament.
However, the Council said the restriction on Aruba’s autonomy should not extend further than strictly necessary.
It recommended limiting the approval requirement to provisions establishing the numerical values of the fiscal standards, rather than allowing it to apply broadly to every part of the Aruban ordinance.
No Final Finding That Entire Law Is Unconstitutional
The official advice therefore presents a more nuanced position than saying the entire HOFA proposal violates Aruba’s Constitution.
Aruba’s Council of Advice raised substantial constitutional and procedural objections. The Kingdom’s Council of State recognised the restriction on Aruba’s legislative authority but considered a narrower version defensible within a voluntary cooperation agreement.
The Council of State advised the governments to clarify and, where necessary, adjust the proposal before it proceeds further through the legislative process.
No court has issued a final ruling declaring HOFA unconstitutional.
Dijkhoff Calls for Neutral Public Information
Dijkhoff said the public discussion has become too closely connected to party politics.
He argued that residents should receive neutral explanations about the proposed law, including its financial advantages, supervision requirements, exit conditions and possible effects on Aruba’s autonomy.
The Fundacion SIKI president said citizens should be able to examine the available reports and reach their own conclusions instead of being presented with only a choice between complete acceptance and complete rejection.
Dijkhoff has previously presented his objections and alternative perspectives during sessions involving Aruba’s trade unions. He has argued that the island’s improving debt position should also be considered when evaluating whether the proposed supervision structure remains necessary.
Referendum Suggested but Not Legally Confirmed
Dijkhoff questioned whether a referendum or another explicit public mandate should be required before Aruba accepts a restriction affecting national legislative authority.
His argument is that Parliament and the government should not transfer part of Aruba’s autonomy without first consulting the population.
However, neither the Council of State advice nor the official HOFA documentation reviewed states that a referendum is a mandatory legal condition.
The referendum proposal should therefore remain clearly attributed to Dijkhoff rather than described as an established constitutional requirement.
Proposed Oversight Is Intended to Be Temporary
The HOFA proposal states that Kingdom financial supervision should be temporary.
When Aruba complies with all applicable standards for at least three consecutive years, it may ask the Kingdom Council of Ministers to terminate the Kingdom Act.
Supervision would then be transferred to a national institution known as the Begrotingskamer, or Budget Chamber.
Critics have questioned whether the conditions for leaving the framework are sufficiently clear and whether termination would occur automatically after Aruba meets the standards.
The proposal allows Aruba to request termination, but the law would not necessarily disappear automatically at the end of the three-year period.
Political Transition Adds Uncertainty
Dijkhoff also referred to Prime Minister Mike Eman’s announced departure from office on January 1, 2027.
Eman has said he will first step down as leader of the AVP in September 2026 before leaving the prime minister’s position at the beginning of the following year.
Dijkhoff said the leadership change could affect how the HOFA discussion develops and who assumes political responsibility for the final decisions.
He called for the debate to continue regardless of changes in party leadership or government personnel.
Aruba’s Institutions Remain Responsible
Dijkhoff argued that Aruba is entering a constitutional situation it has not previously experienced since obtaining Status Aparte.
He said the country’s Constitution has not been specifically updated to address every question created by modern Kingdom cooperation agreements and financial-supervision arrangements.
The debate therefore concerns more than government debt or access to inexpensive loans. It also concerns the balance of authority among Aruba’s government, Parliament and Kingdom institutions.
The HOFA Constitutional Concerns raised by Dijkhoff centre on whether the proposed framework limits Aruba’s autonomy more than necessary and whether residents have received enough impartial information about its consequences.
The official legal advice confirms that the autonomy issue deserves careful attention, but it does not establish that the complete HOFA proposal is unconstitutional. The final framework may still be amended as the governments respond to the recommendations made by the Kingdom’s Council of State.
