On November 3, Suriname’s Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie, OM) issued an official press statement clarifying its recent decision to deny a general information request from former Interior Affairs Minister Bronto Somohardjo related to the body’s prosecution policies, confirming that it is in the final stages of drafting a formal petition to launch a full judicial pre-investigation (Gerechtelijk Vooronderzoek, GVO) against the former cabinet member. The OM noted that a draft version of the petition has already been completed, with final refinements underway before it is formally submitted to the investigating judge in the immediate coming period.
The clarification follows widespread public debate and recent local media coverage surrounding Somohardjo’s October information submission to the Prosecutor-General, which was formally rejected via an official letter dated October 28, 2026. As outlined in the correspondence, the rejection was explicitly tied to the active ongoing criminal probe targeting Somohardjo, who was formally indicted by Suriname’s National Assembly (De Nationale Assemblée) on June 4, 2026. The indictment was filed in full compliance with the national Law on Indictment and Prosecution of Political Office Holders (Wet In Staat van Beschuldigingstelling en Vervolging Politieke Ambtsdragers, WIPA).
The core of the investigation centers on suspected large-scale financial misconduct and irregularities that allegedly took place at the Ministry of Interior Affairs during Somohardjo’s tenure as head of the department, with key evidence drawn from verified findings in an audit report published by the Central Government Accounting Service (Centrale Landsaccountantsdienst, CLAD).
In its public statement, the OM emphasized its unwavering commitment to institutional transparency, public accountability, and the National Assembly’s constitutional oversight mandate, but noted that the statutory right to request public information does not guarantee unconditional access to all requested materials. All information disclosure requests are assessed on a case-by-case basis, with formal consideration given to the nature of the data requested, its availability, the specific context of the submission, and adherence to existing binding legal frameworks. The body clarified that the rejection of Somohardjo’s individual request does not represent a blanket policy of withholding information about its general prosecution protocols, noting that it already regularly publishes detailed operational data and criminal case processing updates via its annual public reports. The OM concluded by reaffirming that it carries out all of its statutory duties independently, impartially, and with rigorous due care, and urged all public discourse around its operational work to be rooted in accurate, verified, and complete factual information.