Suriname’s National Assembly convened on Thursday to debate four legislative initiatives, three of which propose significant alterations to the nation’s judicial organization. The proceedings have sparked intense controversy, with opposition parliamentarian Krishna Mathoera (VHP) warning that these measures threaten the fundamental independence of the judiciary.
Mathoera contends that the proposed reforms appear hastily prepared without demonstrable necessity and lack both substantive justification and broad societal support. She emphasizes that the structure of Suriname’s three governmental branches—judicial, executive, and legislative—represents fundamental constitutional choices ratified by popular referendum in 1987. These institutions, she argues, must maintain independence while providing mutual checks and balances within a democratic framework.
Among the most contentious proposals is the amendment to the Regulation on the Organization and Composition of the Judiciary (Wet RIS), which would introduce new consultation procedures for judicial appointments. Mathoera questions the proposal’s legal coherence, noting that Article 4 of the existing law addresses different matters entirely and contains no first clause to which additional clauses could logically be appended.
The initiative to establish a College of Prosecutors General has drawn particular criticism. While President Jennifer Simons has cited prolonged processing of criminal cases as justification, Mathoera argues this structural change would not address core inefficiencies. Instead, she advocates for strengthening existing institutions through improved planning, additional personnel, enhanced investigative capabilities, and digital transformation.
Mathoera further warns that allowing political channels rather than the Public Prosecutor’s Office to nominate judicial officials creates dangerous potential for partisan appointments. In Suriname’s compact society, she cautions, this could exacerbate political influence, potentially prioritizing party loyalty over professional competence. Multiple prosecutorial authorities might also produce operational delays, unclear directives, reduced cooperation, and diminished authority throughout the judicial system.
The parliamentarian concludes that structural governmental challenges require foundational strengthening rather than new institutions. She specifically calls for investment in police capabilities, crime prevention, serious case handling, improved investigative work, higher-quality case files, and expanded digital processes—arguing that these measures would more effectively enhance judicial quality and efficiency.