In a heated session at De Nationale Assemblee, opposition parliamentarian Ebu Jones of the National Democratic Party (NDP) launched scathing criticism against the proposed Sustainable Nature Management Act, warning of constitutional violations and potential foreign interference in Suriname’s natural resources.
Jones articulated fundamental objections to the legislation during Monday’s debate, characterizing it as granting “abnormal, unprecedented, and far-reaching powers” to the National Environmental Authority (NMA). The lawmaker emphasized that Suriname’s constitution explicitly mandates that natural resources and their revenues must benefit the nation’s overall development—a principle he believes the proposed legislation undermines.
The parliamentarian expressed particular concern over provisions that would allow revenues from natural resources, including carbon credits, to flow directly to concession holders rather than national development funds. “This effectively diverts money from society and central authority that should instead be deployed for national development,” Jones stated, making clear his intention to block such arrangements.
Jones further raised alarms about potential foreign influence, suggesting international organizations and foreign powers might use non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to gain control over Suriname’s natural wealth. He warned that such influences could become institutionalized through legislation, requiring heightened vigilance.
Addressing President Jennifer Simons directly, Jones urged extreme caution in selecting advisors on this matter, warning against opening doors to structures that would divert funds from society.
The politician asserted that environmental policy should remain with the government—which bears political responsibility and answers to parliament—rather than being delegated to an authority. He criticized provisions making the NMA central to policy preparation, effectively rendering the government dependent on an authority, which he deemed constitutionally improper.
Jones also identified contradictions between the proposed legislation and existing environmental framework laws, noting that concepts, responsibilities, and powers weren’t consistently aligned, potentially creating legal complications.
Additional criticisms focused on granting investigative powers to the NMA, which Jones called unacceptable since economic crime investigation and prosecution traditionally fall under police and public prosecutor jurisdiction. He also expressed concerns about the environmental fund gaining expanded capabilities, including loan provision authority, through what he described as “surreptitious means.
Following unanimous criticism during initial debate, further proceedings have been postponed indefinitely while initiators and legal experts continue refining the legislation.