On 29 October, local judicial proceedings in Suriname advanced in the high-stakes dispute over leadership of the Telecommunicatie Autoriteit Suriname (TAS, Suriname Telecommunications Authority), as legal representatives for the TAS Supervisory Board (Raad van Commissarissen, RvC) laid out their full case before the Court of Justice during an appeal hearing. Representing the RvC, prominent attorney Gerold Sewcharan argued that the employment contract former director Wendy Jap-A-Joe has cited to justify remaining in her post is legally void, as it was drafted and executed in direct violation of national TAS regulatory laws. Sewcharan outlined three core legal questions the RvC has formally submitted for the three-judge panel, led by court president Sieglien Wijnhard and flanked by justices Alida Johanns and Jane Jensen, to resolve. First, the RvC asserts that Jap-A-Joe’s official presidential appointment term, as explicitly outlined in the original 2021 presidential resolution that installed her as director, formally expired on 19 October 2026, leaving the RvC legally mandated to assume full administrative oversight of TAS operations starting 20 October. Second, the RvC confirmed its legal standing to act as the governing body of the regulatory authority in the interim period following the end of Jap-A-Joe’s fixed tenure. The central point of contention, however, centers on the informal employment contract Jap-A-Joe has presented to argue for extended tenure. Sewcharan emphasized that the TAS Act mandates a strict multi-stakeholder process for setting any director’s employment terms: the Ministry of Transport, Communication and Tourism must be actively involved in negotiations, the full RvC must be formally consulted for input, and the entire agreement requires explicit signed approval from the Council of Ministers. None of these statutory requirements were followed, Sewcharan told the court: the document in question was signed only by Jap-A-Joe herself and a former acting supervisory board chair, with no documented evidence of RvC consultation, ministerial oversight, or Council of Ministers sign-off. The attorney clarified that his argument does not invalidate Jap-A-Joe’s five years of prior service as TAS director, noting her tenure from the original presidential appointment resolution was fully legally valid, and no actions she took in that period are being challenged. A subordinate internal employment document, he stressed, cannot override or extend the fixed terms set by a formal presidential resolution, and any reappointment to the director post after 19 October 2026 would require an entirely new, separate presidential appointment decree. Jap-A-Joe initially filed lower court litigation to request a temporary injunction blocking the RvC from taking over TAS operations, arguing her employment status remained unresolved pending a full substantive hearing on her legal position. The RvC has pushed back against that claim, stating no legal ambiguity exists, no separate dismissal resolution is required once a fixed presidential appointment term expires as explicitly written in the original decree, and the unapproved private contract carries no legal weight to extend her tenure. Following the two-day appeal hearing that began on Wednesday, 28 October, Sewcharan noted the three-judge panel is expected to issue a formal ruling on the matter imminently.