In a significant parliamentary debate on judicial reform, Surinamese Assemblymember Poetini Atompai of the National Party of Suriname (NPS) has articulated a controversial position regarding the nation’s judicial future. During Tuesday’s session, Atompai explicitly rejected joining the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as Suriname’s final appellate court, instead proposing an alternative arrangement with the Supreme Court of the Netherlands featuring a specialized Surinamese chamber.
Atompai’s argument centered on historical and substantive legal alignment, noting that Suriname’s judicial system fundamentally derives from Dutch legal traditions. He emphasized that Surinamese courts already routinely reference Dutch jurisprudence in practice. The parliamentarian shared firsthand experiences from his tenure as former chairman of the Surinamese Police Union, alleging political interference in the Public Prosecutor’s Office by former President Chan Santokhi.
The NPS representative characterized the CCJ option as politically motivated and pragmatically challenging for many Surinamese citizens due to geographical distance and substantial costs. While acknowledging that a fully independent Surinamese Supreme Court remains a long-term aspiration, Atompai maintained that this would only become viable after substantial organizational and substantive strengthening of the domestic judicial system.
Additionally, Atompai vigorously advocated for establishing a College of Attorneys-General to replace the current single Attorney-General structure. He argued that concentrated power in one individual poses significant risks to judicial independence and oversight. A multi-member governance model based on the primus inter pares principle would, in his view, enhance transparency and prevent political influence.
These positions notably diverge from those expressed by NPS faction leader Jerrel Pawiroredjo just one day earlier, creating visible tension within the coalition. VHP acting faction leader Dew Sharman immediately questioned whether Atompai represented personal opinions or official party policy, noting contradictory messages from the same political faction.
Atompai responded sharply to the interruption, defending intra-party diversity of thought. He asserted that his party maintains space for individual viewpoints without enforcing uniform positions, contrasting this with what he implied were more rigid disciplinary approaches in other parties. The parliamentarian emphasized NPS’s tradition of internal debate and open opinion formation, which he credited for the party’s historical significance in national governance.