Justice Doesn’t Forget

Justice is often criticized for moving too slowly. Court cases can take years to investigate, prosecute, and finally conclude. To many, the wheels of justice appear to turn painfully slowly. Yet when they finally reach their destination, they have a remarkable way of bringing years of decisions into sharp focus. That is precisely what happened this month. Within just nine days, two high-profile criminal cases involving former Aruban public officials reached significant milestones. On 8 July 2026, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the conviction of former parliamentarian Alan Howell. Then, on 17 July 2026, the legal journey of former Aruba Minister Plenipotentiary Guillfred Besaril finally came to an end when the Supreme Court confirmed the appellate decision, making his conviction final. Different men. Different offices. Different legal paths. Yet together, these cases tell an important story about accountability in Aruba.

8 July 2026: Howell’s Appeal Falls Short

Readers may recall my earlier column about former parliamentarian Alan Howell, better known to many as “Gold Tooth.” Howell was convicted for embezzling funds intended to support the parliamentary faction he represented. According to the courts, money that should have been used for legitimate parliamentary purposes instead found its way into his personal accounts through a network of questionable invoices, cash withdrawals, and fictitious entities.

Unlike Besaril, Howell received exactly what every convicted defendant hopes for: a full review by the Court of Appeal. His attorneys challenged the legality of the investigation, questioned procedural aspects of the prosecution, introduced additional witness statements, and argued that the trial court had reached the wrong conclusions.

The appellate judges carefully examined every significant argument. They reviewed the evidence, addressed the procedural objections, considered the additional material presented by the defense, and ultimately concluded that the trial court had reached the correct decision. Howell’s conviction remained intact.

The only meaningful change concerned the sentence. Because the appellate proceedings had exceeded what is considered a reasonable period under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court reduced his prison sentence by one month.

That distinction is important. The reduction was not based on doubts about his guilt or weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. It simply reflected a defendant’s right to have criminal proceedings concluded within a reasonable time. The conviction itself remained firmly supported by the evidence.

Following the judgment, Howell announced his intention to seek cassation before the Dutch Supreme Court. He is fully entitled to do so. Whether that challenge succeeds is another matter entirely.

17 July 2026: The End of the Road for Besaril

Only nine days later came another significant development.

Former Aruba Minister Plenipotentiary Guillfred Besaril exhausted the last legal remedy available to him. The Supreme Court confirmed the earlier decision that his appeal had been properly declared inadmissible because it had been filed outside the statutory deadline. As a result, the conviction imposed by the Court of First Instance is now final.

The practical consequences are significant. Besaril must serve the ten-month custodial portion of his sentence and repay Afl. 138,688 to the Country of Aruba as unlawfully obtained financial benefit.

For those who may have lost track of the legal journey, it is worth remembering what the underlying case was about. The Court of First Instance found that, during his tenure as Aruba’s Minister Plenipotentiary in the Netherlands, Besaril repeatedly used public funds entrusted to the Arubahuis to pay for private expenses, including renovations, telecommunications costs, vacations, and other personal expenditures. The court concluded that these expenses served no public purpose and amounted to embezzlement and abuse of office.

After his conviction, Besaril exercised his right to appeal. Unfortunately for him, the notice of appeal was submitted after the statutory deadline had expired. That procedural issue ultimately determined the fate of the appeal.

Many people instinctively ask whether that is fair. Shouldn’t the courts have considered the merits of the case instead?

The answer lies in understanding why procedural rules exist. Courts depend upon certainty. Deadlines cannot become flexible depending on the prominence of the defendant or the seriousness of the allegations. Once exceptions begin, equal treatment before the law quickly disappears.

When Procedure Becomes Destiny

There is an important professional lesson hidden within the Besaril case.

One lesson lawyers learn early in practice is that procedural deadlines deserve the utmost respect. Many experienced litigators make it a habit to file important procedural documents well before the statutory deadline, often a day or more in advance. It is not because they doubt their ability to calculate a deadline. It is because experience teaches that unexpected circumstances can arise. Technology fails, printers run out of ink, computers crash, emergencies occur, traffic delays happen, and court registries close. Filing early is not a legal requirement; it is simply prudent professional practice. Once a deadline has expired, even the strongest legal arguments may never be heard.

Whether the outcome in Besaril’s case would have been different had the appeal been heard on its merits is something we will never know. The procedural issue prevented the Court of Appeal from ever reaching that question. That, perhaps more than anything else, demonstrates how litigation can sometimes turn not only on legal arguments, but also on strict compliance with procedural rules.

Different Roads, Same Destination

The contrast between the Howell and Besaril cases is fascinating.

Howell received a complete appellate review. Every significant legal argument was considered. Every procedural objection was addressed. The evidence was re-examined. After all that, the conviction stood.

Besaril never reached that stage. His appeal ended before the Court of Appeal ever considered the substance of the case because of a missed procedural deadline.

Different roads. Same destination. Both cases ultimately resulted in criminal convictions that remain firmly in place.

Neither conviction appeared overnight. They were the culmination of years of investigations, extensive financial analysis, witness interviews, lengthy court proceedings, and multiple opportunities for the defendants to challenge the evidence presented against them. Justice, particularly in complex financial crime, is rarely quick. But neither should it be. Thoroughness is often more important than speed.

There is an old saying that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. These cases remind us of another important truth. Justice must also be allowed to run its course.

What Does This Mean for Aruba?

For years, many Arubans have expressed frustration that politicians and senior public officials appeared to operate under different rules than everyone else. Whether that perception was entirely justified is open to debate, but it certainly existed.

Recent developments suggest that something may be changing.

Within the space of nine days, one former parliamentarian saw his conviction largely affirmed by the Court of Appeal, while a former minister exhausted every legal remedy available to him. These are not merely victories for the prosecution. They are reminders that public office does not place anyone above the law.

As a lawyer, I read these judgments with professional interest. As a citizen, I read them with mixed emotions. No country wants to see former ministers or members of parliament convicted of criminal offenses. That is hardly a source of national pride. Yet I would be far more concerned if credible allegations involving public officials were never investigated, never prosecuted, or never tested before independent courts.

That is how democracies lose public confidence.

Justice has no election cycle. Politicians come and go. Governments rise and fall. Coalitions change. But court files remain open until the law says otherwise. The events of July 2026 are a reminder that while political careers may be temporary, legal accountability often has a much longer memory.

Closing Thoughts

Perhaps the most important lesson from these cases is not about Guillfred Besaril or Alan Howell at all.

Public office is temporary. Political influence is temporary. Headlines are temporary. Court judgments, however, have a habit of lasting much longer. Long after the speeches have been forgotten, the campaign posters removed, and the political debates faded from memory, the written judgments remain. They become part of the public record and, in many respects, part of a person’s legacy.

Every person who enters public office will eventually leave it. What remains is not merely the title they once held, but the choices they made while holding it. For some, that legacy is measured by years of dedicated public service. For others, it is measured by court judgments.

The choice, ultimately, is theirs.

See you next week. And don’t forget to visit www.lincolngomez.com, where you’ll find all my blogs and podcasts in one place. Thank you for reading, and I look forward to continuing these conversations with you as we explore the legal issues that shape our island and our democracy.