分类： politics

On a Thursday evening in mid-May, Suriname’s Minister of Finance and Planning Adelien Wijnerman stood before the National Assembly to defend the administration’s controversial proposal to postpone the full enforcement of the 2024 Public Finance Accounting Law until the 2029 fiscal year.

Minister Wijnerman argued that critical regulatory frameworks, administrative digital systems and institutional preparedness measures remain far from complete for the new legislation to take full effect. Until the end of the 2028 fiscal cycle, the 2019 version of the Public Finance Accounting Law will remain in force to govern government budgeting and financial reporting processes. After hours of extensive parliamentary debate, lawmakers voted to adjourn further deliberation on the proposal until the following Tuesday.

Rossellie Cotino, chair of the committee of rapporteurs from the National Democratic Party (NDP), outlined the sequence of events that led the current government to request the delay. According to Cotino, the 2026 fiscal budget circulars should have been distributed to all government ministries by May 2025 under the original 2024 law timeline. When the current administration took office, however, it found that the entire 2026 budget had already been drafted in alignment with the 2019 law’s requirements.

This left the finance minister with two unappealing options: withdraw all completed budget documents and restart the entire drafting process under the new regulations, or ask the National Assembly to grant an extension to the 2024 law’s implementation. Cotino explained that policymakers ultimately opted for a legislative amendment to delay implementation because an on-the-ground assessment found almost no meaningful preparatory work had been completed to make the new law operational.

Cotino detailed a long list of bottlenecks that currently block full rollout of the reform. Multiple mandatory implementing regulations, budget guidelines and institutional overhauls are still missing. Ministry-level Budget and Financial Affairs (BFZ) departments are not adequately trained or structured to take on their expanded new responsibilities under the law.

Other unresolved issues include the lack of formalized inter-ministerial collaboration protocols, standardized financial processes, rules for audit committees, budget administration frameworks and asset management systems. Staff training programs have not yet been developed, and the country’s current Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) does not meet the reporting requirements set out by international International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS), which the new law mandates adoption of.

The proposal has drawn fierce pushback from the opposition. VHP party leader Asis Gajadien argued that the delay amounts to a full retreat to the outdated old financial system and puts critical much-needed public finance reforms on hold. He warned that as Suriname prepares to receive substantial future oil revenue, the country cannot afford to weaken public financial discipline or erode state institutional capacity.

Gajadien contended that implementation challenges should not be an excuse to suspend reform efforts, but rather a motivation to speed up rollout work. Instead of a multi-year delay, he called for a phased implementation of the 2024 law, paired with clear binding deadlines, concrete implementing arrangements and mandatory annual progress reports to the National Assembly.

In response, Minister Wijnerman reaffirmed the current government’s commitment to eventually implementing the 2024 accounting law, but stressed that a thorough assessment confirms the country cannot meet all legal requirements for the 2026, 2027 and 2028 fiscal cycles. Key outstanding mandates required by the new law that are still missing include a five-year financial plan, a budget policy memorandum, formal budget rules, and primary expenditure ceilings.

The minister also emphasized the need for sweeping changes to government processes and digital infrastructure across all departments. Full implementation of the law requires a structured, step-by-step approach and major upgrades to human capacity, IT systems and financial workflows across all ministries. Based on the government’s detailed implementation roadmap, the administration has concluded that a three-year preparation period is necessary before the law can take full effect in 2029.

Across democracies globally, elected lawmakers routinely anchor their rhetoric in the will of the people, repeatedly emphasizing that they hold office as public representatives, and that transparency and open governance are non-negotiable pillars of democratic rule. Yet when Suriname’s National Assembly was called to make a critical high-stakes decision on behalf of voters—whether to allow criminal prosecution of three former ministers tied to ongoing corruption investigations—the legislative body failed to uphold the standard of maximum openness it claims to defend. On May 22, the assembly convened three separate closed and open hearings for the ex-officials: Bronto Somohardjo, former Minister of Internal Affairs; Riad Nurmohamed, former Minister of Public Works; and Gillmore Hoefdraad, former Minister of Finance. The country’s prosecutor general has filed a motion against the trio under the country’s 2003 Act on the Institution of Prosecution of Political Office Holders (WIPA), the legal framework that governs parliamentary process for cases involving current or former ministers. Under WIPA rules, parliament must first cast a political vote to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence to move forward with criminal prosecution and investigation. Importantly, this initial vote does not judge guilt or innocence; it only clears the path for formal legal proceedings to proceed. In this process, parliament acts as a representative of the broader Surinamese public, not partisan or private interests. Of the three former ministers facing scrutiny, Hoefdraad is currently a fugitive, so public and legislative attention has centered on Nurmohamed and Somohardjo, both of whom served in the 2020–2025 Santokhi cabinet. A striking contrast has emerged in how the two former officials have approached the hearings, laying bare the hypocrisy at the heart of the parliament’s decision to let each official choose the openness of their proceeding. From the start of the investigation, Somohardjo has adopted a fully transparent stance. He has repeatedly stated he has nothing to hide, and even gone so far as to say he would vote in favor of opening prosecution against himself if the process required it. Most notably, he formally requested that his entire hearing be open to the public. The parliamentary hearing committee granted his request, and the assembly speaker later approved the decision. The case of Nurmohamed could not be more different. Despite his own past public comments touting governmental transparency and claiming he has nothing to conceal, he has fought to keep his hearing behind closed doors. The assembly has granted his demand, leaving the public shut out of proceedings that directly involve the management of public funds and alleged misconduct in public office. This outcome is a fundamental mistake on the part of the National Assembly. Openness in proceedings for public officials cannot be a privilege that depends on the preferences of the official being called to account. This is not a private legal matter; it is a review of conduct while holding public office, and the Surinamese public has an inalienable right to full transparency. That right is even more pressing given the serious allegations that prompted the prosecutor general’s request. Over the past several years, the Ministry of Public Works, which Nurmohamed led until 2025, has been the center of fierce public debate over rigged contracting, mismanaged infrastructure projects, and widespread corruption allegations. Nearly 10 months after Nurmohamed left the ministry, evidence of widespread mismanagement and misconduct has continued to emerge. His time in office was also marked by unpopular, polarizing comments that many Surinamese viewed as arrogant and out of touch, including a notorious remark that “society needs to be punished.” The prosecutor general’s formal motion accuses Nurmohamed of multiple violations of Suriname’s criminal code, including forgery, fraud, and embezzlement. The filing also notes that the alleged offenses are suspected to have been carried out in collaboration with other unidentified co-conspirators, who could face their own criminal proceedings if the case moves forward. Given the gravity of these allegations, the public unquestionably has a right to observe how Nurmohamed defends his conduct to the elected representatives who will decide the next steps of the case. Transparency is not a punishment for public officials—it is a core requirement of public accountability. Any person who has exercised public power, managed taxpayer funds, and made decisions that impact the entire nation owes the public a transparent accounting of their actions. The argument that closed-door hearings are necessary to protect the procedural rights of the accused holds little weight at this stage of the process. The WIPA process is not a criminal trial that results in conviction; it is a preliminary political decision on whether prosecution should be allowed to move forward. Precisely because parliament is making this decision on behalf of the people, the entire deliberation must be open and visible for the public to monitor. Somohardjo, unlike many of Suriname’s sitting lawmakers, understands this basic democratic principle. His choice to embrace open hearings demonstrates a level of political maturity and commitment to accountability that should be the baseline for all public officials. Anyone who claims to have nothing to hide has no reason to hide behind closed doors, and Somohardjo’s choice should have been the standard applied to all three hearings, not the exception. The hearing committee and National Assembly leadership should have adopted one clear, unwavering rule: all hearings must be open to the public, regardless of personal preference, political sensitivity, or strategic partisan calculation. Once openness becomes a negotiable concession rather than a non-negotiable democratic standard, the public is left with the unavoidable impression that transparency will be applied selectively to protect political interests. That perception erodes public trust in democratic institutions at a time when trust in Suriname’s government is already fragile. The decision to let Nurmohamed bar the public from his hearing does not just violate the public’s right to know—it betrays the core commitment to transparency that lawmakers claim to uphold.

On May 22, a high-stakes parliamentary hearing process kicked off in Suriname for three former senior political officials, who face criminal investigation over allegations of misconduct during their time in government. A key development emerged on the opening day: the hearing for Riad Nurmohamed, the country’s former Minister of Public Works, will proceed behind closed doors, after the former official personally requested that the session not be open to the public.

Rabin Parmessar, chair of the special parliamentary committee tasked with overseeing these hearings for political officeholders, confirmed the decision in an interview with local outlet Starnieuws, emphasizing that the panel respects Nurmohamed’s choice. “We cannot force him to proceed with an open hearing if he does not want one,” Parmessar noted, adding that National Assembly hearings are closed to the public by default, with exceptions granted only under specific circumstances.

This closed-door arrangement stands in contrast to the hearing for a second former minister, Bronto Somohardjo, ex-Minister of the Interior. In that case, the committee voted by majority to grant the former official’s request for an open hearing, departing from the standard rule. Four committee members supported holding the public hearing, two opposed the move, and one abstained from the vote, clearing the way for an open session for Somohardjo.

The entire series of hearings is rooted in a request from Suriname’s Public Prosecutor General, launched under the country’s Prosecution of Political Officeholders Act. Prosecutors at the Public Ministry (OM) say they have accumulated sufficient evidence to justify moving forward with criminal proceedings against all three former cabinet members. Under Suriname’s law, the National Assembly must grant formal approval before any criminal prosecution of former political officeholders can proceed.

The allegations against each former official center on distinct cases of alleged misconduct:

The case against Gillmore Hoefdraad, the country’s former Finance Minister, focuses on potential irregularities linked to state funds and the management of assets at the Surinamese Postal Savings Bank. Prosecutors have flagged suspected fraud, abuse of official authority, and circumvention of regulatory oversight as key areas of investigation.

Nurmohamed, the first former minister scheduled for hearing on May 22, is tied to alleged irregularities in the Pan American Real Estate affordable housing construction project. Investigators are probing financial agreements, contractor payments, and the execution of infrastructure works for the initiative, with prosecutors citing reasonable suspicion of forgery, fraud, and abuse of official power.

For Somohardjo, investigators are examining allegations that he misused the Ministry of Interior’s personnel, equipment, and public funds for partisan political activities and personal gain. Prosecutors also claim he provided preferential treatment to a connected construction company for government contracts and improper payments from the ministry’s budget.

Per the published hearing schedule, Nurmohamed’s closed hearing was set to begin at 9:00 a.m. local time, followed by Somohardjo’s open hearing at 11:00 a.m., and Hoefdraad’s hearing scheduled for 1:00 p.m. The outcome and logistics of Hoefdraad’s hearing remain uncertain, however, as the former Finance Minister has been a fugitive from justice for years.