Amigoe (Aruba): PM Nelson Oduber and Jossy Mansur lost appeals against each other

Amigoe; June 22, 2006: Nelson Oduber and Jossy Mansur lost appeals against each other 

Freedom of the Press is alive and well in Aruba. What an amazing difference between the Aruban and US Courts. I hope the Judge in NYC takes a look at how some of these rulings are handed down.

But the word ‘corrupt’ towards Oduber may be considered as a serious accusation, because the premier is considered to be integer and should enjoy the voters’ trust. 

Could anyone imagine if this same tact was taken in the US? Every Democrat in the Senate and House would be sued for comments and rhetoric made against President George W. Bush in a time of war on terror. Culturally, it is not even close.  The point is that the Courts in Aruba look at things in such a different manner that hopefully the Civil Court Judge will consider the jurisdictional issue as it seems obvious the our two legal systems, laws and interpretations are like night and day.

ARUBA – Prime Minister Nelson Oduber (MEP) and director, chief editor, and owner of the morning newspaper Diario, Jossy Mansur have both lost the appeal case they have instituted against each other.  Mansur is sentenced to place a rectification, which he has already done quite some time ago, right after the first sentence.  He appealed the verdict, because he is of the opinion that he had published nothing wrong.  Oduber was of the opinion that the rectification was not published according to the sentence, but the Court ruled against that. 

The judge had decided in September of 2005 that Mansur had offended Oduber by publishing twice in the Diario that Oduber had done business with a Columbian drug cartel from his home in October of 1993 and had called him the most corrupt premier ever.  The verdict was that Mansur had to rectify.  Both Mansur and Oduber appealed the verdict.  Mansur was of the opinion that he had not published offensive statements about the premier and that a rectification was therefore not appropriate.  The judges of the Court of First Instance as well as the Court of Appeals were of the opinion that due to his function, a premier can receive more criticism than a normal citizen.  But the word ‘corrupt’ towards Oduber may be considered as a serious accusation, because the premier is considered to be integer and should enjoy the voters’ trust.  The Court of Appeals ratified the decision of the Court of First Instance and ruled against Mansur. 

The premier appealed because he was of the opinion that the rectification didn’t comply with the demands in the verdict.  The rectification had to be as big as the comments of Mansur and had to be published on page three.  The Court didn’t agree with Oduber and ruled against his appeal.