On August 14, Suriname’s Public Prosecution Service (Het Openbaar Ministerie, OM) issued an urgent formal warning to National Assembly Speaker Ashwin Adhin, raising grave objections to a series of proposed constitutional and judicial amendments that the agency says undermine judicial independence and the foundation of the country’s rule of law.
The draft amendments, put forward by six initiative sponsors in early August, would revise the constitution, the Judicial Position Act, and regulations governing the structure and composition of Suriname’s judiciary. Signed by the Prosecutor-General (PG) and all prosecuting officers, the OM’s letter voices “serious dissatisfaction and fundamental concern” over the proposals, warning they pose a direct threat to the independence of the judiciary and Suriname’s broader rule of law. While the OM supports targeted modernization of the judicial branch, the agency stresses any reform must come “without concessions to the principle of the rule of law” — a standard the current proposals fail to meet, instead eroding core institutional safeguards.
One of the most contentious provisions is a proposed cap of “at most 7 years” for the Prosecutor-General’s term of office. The OM warns this vague wording opens the door to arbitrary shorter appointments, creating a clear pathway for political interference in prosecutorial work. This directly contradicts the judiciary’s own proposal, which calls for a minimum 7-year term to protect institutional independence.
Earlier this year, the PG unveiled its own plan for a modernized OM, which included a rotation system for the PG position, expanding the number of Advocates-General (AGs), and establishing a dedicated OM Council. The new draft proposals include no provisions to advance these strengthening measures, the OM says, and instead amount to “destabilization of the rule of law and disavowal of the judicial branch.”
To address the loss of lifetime appointments for the PG that the reforms propose, the OM has put forward a counterproposal: granting lifetime appointments to Advocates-General. The agency argues this would guarantee stability, objectivity, and independence, allowing AGs to carry out their work “without any reservation and free from political influence.”
The OM also highlights additional alarming flaws in the draft. The proposals eliminate the mandatory advisory input from the High Court of Justice when appointing new AGs, a check the OM calls a critical safeguard for “expertise, quality and independence.” Removing this provision directly strikes at the institutional independence and continuity of the entire judicial branch, the agency says.
Another widely opposed change is the proposal to lower the retirement age for OM staff: 65 years for the Prosecutor-General and 60 years for all other prosecuting officers. The OM warns this change will trigger a mass exodus of experienced prosecutors, eroding the overall quality and operational capacity of the agency. The provision also creates an unexplained discrepancy with the 70-year retirement age for High Court justices, despite the constitution guaranteeing equal status for all judicial officers.
The OM’s own proposal for an OM Council to replace the current management team was rejected by lawmakers. Instead, legislators propose creating a Governing Board with 2 to 4 AGs, a structure the OM calls practically unworkable, since existing law only authorizes 2 AG positions overall. The OM also wants chief prosecutors to gain seats on the governing body to ensure effective operational oversight, a provision not included in the draft.
On the financial side, the OM describes the proposals as bringing a “drastic deterioration” of judicial employment conditions, eroding existing rights and legal certainty. While judicial branch representatives already agreed to targeted financial concessions during negotiations with President Jennifer Simons in a spirit of reasonableness and responsibility, the OM rejects the unilateral, deep salary cuts included in the draft. The cuts raise serious questions about proportionality, fairness, and respect for the special constitutional status of judicial officeholders, the agency says.
In closing, the OM warns that destabilizing the authority of the prosecutorial service will carry far-reaching consequences, including damage to international confidence in Suriname, harm to the national economy, and a deterioration of the country’s investment climate. The agency has issued an urgent appeal to Assembly Speaker Adhin to give full and serious consideration to the judicial branch’s own reform proposals, stating it expects “no legislation will be enacted that destabilizes the judicial branch and the rule of law in Suriname.”
Copies of the letter have been distributed to President Jennifer Simons, the president of the High Court, and professional associations representing lawyers, notaries, and court bailiffs to raise broader awareness of the institutional risks posed by the amendments.