作者： admin

In a significant parliamentary address on Thursday, VHP faction leader Asis Gajadien articulated his party’s firm position regarding Suriname’s judicial modernization efforts. The VHP has decisively rejected the immediate establishment of a national Supreme Court in favor of joining the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the country’s third judicial instance.

Gajadien, who serves on the committee of rapporteurs, emphasized that Suriname must prioritize strengthening the foundational elements of its judicial system before considering top-tier institutional expansions. He revealed that the CCJ has expressed willingness to establish a dedicated Suriname chamber, which would provide high-quality cassation jurisdiction without imposing substantial institutional risks or financial burdens.

The debate emerged during parliamentary discussions concerning initiative laws and constitutional amendments aimed at modernizing Suriname’s judiciary. Gajadien characterized the decision as touching the core of constitutional governance, noting that choices made now would impact citizen confidence, investor security, and legal certainty for decades.

Financial and infrastructural concerns formed a central part of Gajadien’s argument. While acknowledging the theoretical value of cassation jurisprudence for legal development and certainty, he warned that a national Supreme Court would entail enormous structural costs. These would include not only specialized judges but also court clerks, legal researchers, support staff, facilities, and digital infrastructure. In Suriname’s relatively small legal system, such an institution could dangerously divert scarce expertise from first and second instance courts.

The VHP leader highlighted the CCJ’s existing advantages, including experienced judges, modern procedures, and strong institutional embedding. The proposed Suriname chamber would be specifically tailored to the country’s legal system, enabling immediate cassation capabilities without lengthy development phases or additional pressure on national judicial resources.

Gajadien identified the most pressing challenge as lying not at the top but at the base of Suriname’s judicial system. He referenced persistent capacity problems and the impending retirement of numerous judges within the foreseeable future. Until Suriname meets international standards for judicial capacity at fundamental levels, the VHP considers it irresponsible to add new layers at the system’s apex.

Additionally, Gajadien opposed proposals to replace the single Attorney General with a College of Prosecutors-General. He argued that prosecution policy requires clear ultimate responsibility, which a single Attorney General provides through unambiguous authority lines, accountability, and democratic oversight. In small societies, collegiate leadership could instead create diffuse responsibility and increased vulnerability to politicization.

The VHP advocates for a clear reform sequence: first strengthening and modernizing first and second instance courts, then conducting explicit debate about the CCJ’s role as third instance, and only later—if circumstances justify—reconsidering a national Supreme Court.

The parliamentary discussion continues today after only two committee members spoke on Thursday.

A troubling case of systematic timber export fraud has exposed dangerous vulnerabilities in Suriname’s governance systems, nearly receiving judicial legitimization before being overturned by the High Court. The scandal involves six timber exporters who illegally shipped wood to India without valid phytosanitary certificates over several years, including species prohibited for export to that market.

The scheme operated with collaboration from officials within the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (LVV). Anand Ramkisoensing, then Director of Agricultural Research, Marketing and Processing, improperly signed certificates despite lacking authorization. The legitimate authority, Meglin Samuel, Head of Inspection, rightfully refused to participate in misrepresenting wood species on official documents—a critical moment highlighting the distinction between bureaucratic integrity and administrative misconduct.

Ramkisoensing has since been removed from his position and faces criminal charges for deliberate misrepresentation of wood species on phytosanitary documents, constituting serious document fraud rather than mere administrative error.

The case took a shocking turn on December 31, 2025, when Judge Robert Praag issued an injunction compelling the State to issue phytosanitary certificates to the six exporters, despite no official application existing for Indian exports. The timber had originally been fumigated by LVV for China. This ruling effectively forced the State to produce fraudulent documentation that masked reality rather than recording it.

The Court of Justice rightly overturned this decision, establishing clearly that illegal and falsified activities cannot be justified regardless of economic interests involved. The court drew a definitive boundary: years of wrongdoing and fraud cannot receive judicial blessing, even temporarily.

Because the injunction was immediately enforceable, the six exporters managed to sell their shipments in India using fraudulently obtained certificates, profiting from their deception while leaving the rule of law damaged. Despite the High Court’s correct intervention, the timber had already been sold in India as Mora wood while actually consisting of more valuable species.

Adding to the concerning pattern, a seventh exporter (Jeva Trading NV) sought to benefit from the original ruling before its annulment, demonstrating how the initial judgment created a dangerous precedent that encouraged further violations.

The case raises serious questions about the political responsibility of former LVV Minister Parmanand Sewdien, under whose watch these practices continued for years. While not necessarily indicating criminal guilt, it certainly suggests administrative accountability failures regarding how unauthorized signing could occur systematically and why earlier intervention didn’t occur when integrity was demonstrated by authorized officials.

This case demands full transparency, administrative evaluation, and where justified by evidence, further criminal proceedings. The criminal investigation must address numerous unanswered questions surrounding this affair.

The Court of Justice ultimately delivered the correct message: wrongdoing remains wrong even when profitable. However, this case serves as a stark warning about what occurs when fraud becomes policy and certificates become covers—threatening the credibility of the State both nationally and internationally.

Suriname is embarking on a significant constitutional transformation with proposed amendments aimed at establishing two groundbreaking institutional reforms: the creation of a Supreme Court with cassation jurisdiction and the restructuring of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Rabin Parmessar, chairman of the reporters’ committee and NDP faction leader, presented detailed justifications for these changes during Thursday’s parliamentary session.

The constitutional amendments target Articles 133, 139, 140, 141, and 146, with the addition of a new Article 139a. Article 134 will undergo only linguistic adjustments. The core reforms focus on two fundamental pillars:

1. Establishment of a third judicial instance (cassation): The High Court of the Republic of Suriname
2. Restructuring of the Public Prosecutor’s Office under a College of Attorneys-General

Parmessar explained that the current Article 139 presents a legal obstacle by identifying the Court of Justice as the supreme judicial body. The proposed amendment would remove this barrier while establishing constitutional foundations for the Supreme Court as the highest judicial authority with cassation jurisdiction. Cassation would involve legal review rather than factual re-evaluation of cases, ensuring proper application and interpretation of law within statutory limits.

While general support exists for a third judicial instance, debate continues regarding its implementation structure. Options include establishing a national Supreme Court or joining regional solutions like the Caribbean Court of Justice. Parmessar advocates for a phased approach, allowing government and judicial institutions time to develop necessary institutional and legal frameworks.

Capacity and quality emerge as critical concerns. Parmessar emphasized that the Supreme Court must be meticulously structured and staffed by qualified, integrity-driven jurists to ensure judicial quality and independence. Given current limitations within the magistracy, he proposed considering international embedding and participation, particularly during the initial phase.

Article 139a would create constitutional space for temporary or supplementary cassation functions by foreign or international judicial bodies under legally defined conditions. This addresses both capacity constraints and the importance of international judicial integration for investor confidence.

Current constitutional requirements regarding Surinamese nationality and residency for judicial members (Article 141) could hinder international expertise acquisition. Parmessar proposed creating exceptions specifically for Supreme Court members to facilitate international participation.

The second major reform involves transitioning prosecutorial leadership from a single Attorney-General to a College of Attorneys-General. While acknowledging historical concerns about prosecutorial independence and lifetime appointments, Parmessar argued that collegial leadership could enhance checks and balances, reduce personal dependency, and improve decision-making transparency.

Addressing concerns about Suriname’s small size, Parmessar contended that population scale shouldn’t determine judicial structure adequacy. Key considerations should include power concentration levels, decision-making transparency, and policy consistency maintenance. A collegial system could foster internal debate, quality control, and shared responsibility within compact societies.

Parmessar acknowledged potential risks including bureaucratic delays, unclear authority distribution, and informal political appointments. He stressed the need for clear appointment criteria, decision-making procedures, and responsibility definitions through subsequent legislation.

The explanatory memorandum requires substantial strengthening to clarify reform necessities, rule-of-law objectives, and quality assurance mechanisms. Parmessar positioned these initiatives within broader context: Suriname must make institutional choices aligning with modern requirements for legal protection and judicial development while considering practical capacity and implementation realities.

The National Assembly continues discussions on these initiative laws on Friday.