A significant judicial debate has emerged regarding the establishment of constitutional courts in both Suriname and the Netherlands, revealing critical concerns about political interference in judicial systems. Legal expert Gerold Sewcharan, attorney and chairman of the Foundation for the Legal Order in Suriname (SRiS), has highlighted striking parallels between both nations’ constitutional court discussions.
In a May 2024 article titled “No Constitutional Court for Suriname,” Sewcharan concluded that such an institution offered no substantive added value to Suriname’s legal framework, noting that existing systems already adequately addressed all relevant judicial needs. His analysis suggested that a constitutional court would contribute neither to legal development, political stability, nor legislative enhancement.
The debate gained renewed relevance when a September 2025 publication in the Dutch Jurists Journal (NJB) revealed that the Netherlands’ highest judicial authorities—including the Supreme Court, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, and the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal—expressed significant skepticism about establishing a constitutional court. The NJB article characterized such an institution as “an alien element in the Dutch legal system” that carried substantial risks of political influence in both judicial appointments and verdicts.
Sewcharan notes that Suriname’s legal system derives directly from the Dutch model, making the Dutch judicial authorities’ reservations particularly relevant. Despite this shared heritage, Suriname incorporated constitutional court provisions into its 1975 and 1987 constitutions without thorough public discourse or justification regarding its necessity.
The expert now calls for Surinamese legal professionals to urgently re-examine this constitutional question. Sewcharan has previously proposed establishing a third judicial instance for Suriname that would safeguard legal uniformity within the nation’s jurisdiction—a suggestion that gains renewed importance in light of the ongoing regional debate about judicial independence and constitutional review mechanisms.