作者： admin

A political firestorm engulfed Suriname’s National Assembly (DNA) on Tuesday following controversial remarks by VHP Assembly member Ameerani Jarbandhan regarding the Prosecutor-General’s alleged political leanings. The parliamentary session, initially convened to debate judicial reform bills, rapidly devolved into heated exchanges concerning the politicization of independent state institutions.

Jarbandhan’s commentary emerged during deliberations on legislative amendments concerning the Public Prosecutor’s Office. While addressing case backlogs attributed to resource constraints, expertise shortages, and operational limitations within law enforcement, the assembly member questioned whether proposed changes—including adjustments to the Prosecutor-General’s retirement age—concealed ulterior motives. She explicitly suggested these amendments might represent a subtle effort to remove the official, potentially linked to her political convictions.

The controversy deepened with revelations that ruling coalition members (BEP, ABOP, PL) had previously supported raising the retirement age from 65 to 70 in 2024, only to reverse their position through current legislative initiatives. Jarbandhan framed this reversal as a threat to separation of powers, warning that implementing drastic judicial changes without broad national consultation jeopardizes constitutional integrity.

Assembly Chairman Ashwin Adhin intervened decisively, declaring any discussion of the Prosecutor-General’s political affiliation fundamentally unacceptable. “The Prosecutor-General exists outside political discourse,” Adhin asserted. “As an independent institution lacking representation in this chamber, she merits protection rather than political characterization.” His admonition to maintain technical and policy-focused debate was reinforced by cross-party objections, including suspension requests from VHP member Cedric van Samson and neutrality reminders from NDP leader Rabin Parmessar.

Post-recess, acting VHP leader Dew Sharman attempted damage control by distancing his party from Jarbandhan’s phrasing. Attributing her comments to “juvenile enthusiasm,” Sharman emphasized institutional rather than personal scrutiny should guide deliberations. He proposed retracting or reformulating problematic statements to preserve parliamentary decorum.

Tensions reignited when PL leader Bronto Somohardjo explicitly associated the Prosecutor-General with VHP affiliations, prompting VHP member Krishna Mathoera to demand corrective action. Mathoera condemned political labeling of absent independent officials as “unacceptable, improper, and inappropriate,” urging audio review of contentious statements—a request ultimately denied as Somohardjo refused retraction.

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.

Guyana’s parliamentary authorities have ignited widespread condemnation from media organizations and journalists after implementing stringent new regulations that severely limit press access to legislative proceedings. The controversial measures, enacted by Parliamentary Speaker Manzoor Nadir, impose dual restrictions: drastically reducing the number of journalists permitted in the chamber while simultaneously banning all television cameras from news organizations.

The backlash erupted immediately following Tuesday’s announcement, with particularly fierce criticism emerging across social media platforms. On an official Facebook post by Guyana’s Parliament, media professionals challenged the institution’s justification for the new rules. Parliament officials had claimed that designated press seating remained consistently unoccupied, supporting their decision with a late-night photograph showing empty chairs. Journalists quickly refuted this assertion, explaining that the image was captured after reporters had left to file their stories, calling the representation deliberately misleading.

Further objections center on the prohibition of independent video recording. Journalists now depend exclusively on the legislature’s official livestream, which they describe as technically unreliable with frequent interruptions and substandard quality. Additionally, promised video clips of debates have consistently failed to materialize, leaving news organizations without crucial visual documentation.

Former executives of the Guyana Press Association have joined the chorus of dissent, accusing Parliament of deliberately misleading the public and openly characterizing the restrictions as censorship. The institution’s reference to 2020 COVID-19 protocols as justification has been dismissed by critics as both inappropriate and deceptive.

Multiple journalists report that these measures represent not temporary adjustments but systematic limitations on media access. They warn that excluding cameras and minimizing physical presence of independent media establishes a dangerous precedent that fundamentally undermines democratic oversight and transparency in governmental operations.