作者： admin

A profound crisis of confidence has engulfed Suriname’s judicial institutions following revelations about former President Chan Santokhi’s alleged interference with the Office of the Prosecutor General. The controversy centers on Santokhi’s repeated public statements suggesting he directed prosecutorial decisions, despite his recent parliamentary denials labeling such claims as “gross lies.

Multiple recorded instances show Santokhi employing language that implied direct control over prosecutorial matters. During press conferences and public appearances, he consistently used phrases such as “I have asked the Prosecutor General to investigate this case” and “I have given instructions to the Prosecutor General,” creating a perception of executive override of judicial independence.

The damage to institutional credibility was starkly demonstrated by Prosecutor General Garcia Paragsingh’s response when questioned by journalists. Rather than defending the former president, Paragsingh explicitly stated that no instructions should be given to the Prosecutor’s Office and emphasized that Santokhi should have been more careful with his wording, acknowledging that such statements undermine the prosecution apparatus’s image and credibility.

Two emblematic cases illustrate the concerning overlap between presidential and prosecutorial functions. The detention of NDP parliamentarian Ashwin Adhin occurred after Santokhi publicly announced the arrest before formal procedures were complete. Similarly, the case involving Xaviera Jessurun saw the Prosecutor General writing a letter to the president designating her as a suspect without subsequent legal action.

The resulting erosion of trust has spurred legislative initiatives to reform the judicial system, including a proposal to replace the single Prosecutor General with a college of prosecutors. This initiative represents an institutional cry for help rather than mere academic exercise, signaling deeply damaged public confidence.

Despite the seriousness of these allegations, Thursday’s parliamentary proceedings saw coalition parties, particularly the NDP, adopt an unexpectedly mild approach toward Santokhi. The former president departed the public meeting immediately after his speech, anticipating harsh criticism from subsequent speaker Bronto Somohardjo that never materialized.

Constitutional Article 148 provides the government with authority to establish general prosecution policy and issue commands to the Prosecutor General in matters of state security. However, legal experts emphasize this was never intended as carte blanche for political posturing about individual criminal cases.

The fundamental question remains unanswered: why did Santokhi persistently speak as if the Prosecutor’s Office operated under his direct authority throughout his presidency? Until this receives honest addressing, public distrust represents not a malady but a logical consequence—one justifying profound political and institutional reform.

In a tense session of Suriname’s National Assembly on Thursday, Assembly Member and former President Chan Santokhi (VHP) vehemently denied allegations that he had issued directives to the Prosecutor General during his presidential term. The confrontation emerged during debates on judicial reform, with opposition members maintaining their accusations despite Santokhi’s forceful rebuttal.

Santokhi characterized claims of his interference as a “gross falsehood,” explicitly stating he never exercised constitutional provisions allowing presidential instructions to the Prosecutor General in matters of national security. “I can produce documents demonstrating that other presidents did issue commands. I did not,” Santokhi asserted, drawing a clear distinction between his approach and that of previous administrations.

The former president addressed specific references to his past statements about “giving orders” to the Prosecutor General, clarifying that during critical security situations—such as the February 17, 2023 disturbances—he had merely requested investigations rather than issuing commands. “That is not an order. That is a request any citizen can make,” Santokhi explained, emphasizing the procedural difference.

The debate referenced November 2024 remarks by Prosecutor General Garcia Paragsingh, who had previously emphasized that the president cannot direct the Public Prosecutor’s Office in individual criminal cases. Paragsingh had noted that while political discussions might include claims of instructions, these do not reflect the official stance of the judicial system. She highlighted how repeated uncorrected statements about “giving orders” could potentially damage the perception and independence of the prosecution apparatus.

Regarding judicial reform, Santokhi reiterated his opposition to appointing multiple prosecutors-general, advocating instead for comprehensive systemic overhaul rather than piecemeal legislative changes. He warned that current proposed laws fail to address structural challenges including workload pressure, capacity constraints, specialization needs, decentralization requirements, administrative justice, and preparation for oil and gas sector developments.

Santokhi emphasized that meaningful judicial strengthening requires eliminating political influence and genuinely enhancing independence. “Discussions about three or four prosecutors-general do not solve the fundamental problems of the rule of law,” he concluded.

The session concluded with procedural controversies as VHP members applauded Santokhi’s speech—against assembly rules—and most of the VHP faction demonstratively walked out when PL faction leader Bronto Somohardjo began speaking. Assembly Chairman Ashwin Adhin closed Thursday evening’s session, with deliberations scheduled to resume Friday morning.