On November 3, local time, National Democratic Party (NDP) member of Suriname’s National Assembly Ebu Jones formally submitted a written request to Prosecutor General Garcia Ramcharan-Paragsingh, seeking comprehensive anonymized statistical data on the Public Prosecution Service (OM)’s case prosecution framework. This application comes directly on the heels of a nearly identical information request submitted by Progressive League (PL) parliamentary caucus leader Bronto Somohardjo, which was fully rejected by the top prosecutor earlier. The prosecutor general had cited the ongoing active criminal investigation against Somohardjo as the legal basis for withholding the requested data, a barrier that does not apply to Jones as no pending criminal proceedings have been initiated against him.
Jones’ formal petition is designed to assess whether uniform treatment is extended to suspects from distinct demographic groups when they face identical or comparable criminal charges, as well as to verify whether an individual’s financial resources and social standing exert any undue influence on the OM’s prosecution decision-making process. The requested dataset covers all recorded cases between August 14, 2023, and the most recently available data cut-off date, spanning high-frequency offense categories including drug trafficking, violent assault, domestic abuse, theft, fraud, and deception. For each crime classification, Jones is seeking clear breakdowns of total registered cases and suspect volumes, counts of cases that proceeded to formal prosecution, cases that were fully dismissed (sepots), cases resolved via out-of-court settlements, and the backlog of cases still pending a formal prosecution or disposition ruling.
A core component of the data request asks for anonymized, legally compliant breakdowns of suspect ethnicity across four major demographic communities: Hindustani, Creole, Maroon, and Javanese, to identify any measurable disparities in case processing outcomes for comparable offenses. Jones has also demanded full clarity on the legal statutory basis underpinning the OM’s collection and registration of suspect ethnic background data. If such segmented demographic statistics are not maintained by the prosecution service, he is requesting full details on existing data registration restrictions, as well as formal protocols the OM has implemented to guarantee equal treatment for all suspects regardless of background.
The parliamentary oversight request further probes whether financial capacity and social status are formally recorded or implicitly weighted during prosecution decision-making, along with specific preventative measures the OM has in place to eliminate disparate treatment rooted in wealth or social connections. Jones is also seeking full disclosure of the formal, objective decision-making criteria the prosecution uses to evaluate cases, including factors such as offense severity, available corroborating evidence, prior criminal records of suspects, and eligibility pathways for out-of-court resolution, alongside details of internal audit mechanisms designed to detect and correct unjustified disparities in case handling.
Jones explicitly confirmed in his submission that he is not seeking any personal identifiable information, individual closed or active case files, or sensitive confidential data related to ongoing criminal investigations, and that all requested materials are fully anonymized aggregated statistics suitable for parliamentary oversight review. He referenced an October 13 opinion column published by local outlet Starnieuws that raised public questions about inconsistent processing timelines for multiple high-profile criminal cases, noting that the OM issued a public official response to that column on the very same day of publication. Jones expressed his expectation that his formal parliamentary oversight request will receive equally prompt attention, and has asked the prosecutor general to provide a full written response within 21 calendar days. If compiling the full requested dataset requires additional time beyond that window, he has requested a substantive preliminary update within the 21-day period, alongside a clear timeline for full delivery of the information. He emphasized that he is not operating under a pre-assumption that unequal treatment exists within the prosecution system, and that the data will simply allow him to objectively verify that all comparable cases are processed according to consistent, unbiased criteria.
This new request has reignited broader public debate in Suriname over the boundaries of parliamentary oversight authority, specifically addressing whether an active criminal investigation against a sitting legislator can legally restrict their access to general public administrative data required to fulfill their constitutionally mandated oversight duties. The upcoming response from the prosecutor general will set a critical precedent for transparency standards for the national prosecution service moving forward.









