On August 11, the entire bench of Suriname’s Court of Justice issued a stark public warning to the country’s National Assembly (DNA), sounding the alarm over planned constitutional and legislative amendments that the judiciary says threaten the foundational independence of Suriname’s judicial branch and undermine the rule of law.
The alarm comes in response to newly proposed amendments to three core pieces of Suriname’s legal framework: the national constitution, the Law on the Legal Position of the Judiciary, and the Regulation on the Organization and Composition of the Judicial Power (RIS). While the proponents of the changes have framed the reforms as an effort to strengthen the judicial organization, the Court of Justice rejects this claim outright in its official letter addressed to DNA Speaker Ashwin Adhin. Signed by all sitting judges, the document warns the proposals will result in a significant weakening of the constitutional role of the judiciary.
The court outlines a series of critical flaws in the current draft of the reforms. First, it notes that the necessary alignment between the proposed constitutional changes and supporting implementing legislation under the RIS is entirely missing. This gap, the court argues, will create major delays and practical barriers to implementing any changes, and the dispute at hand is not merely a disagreement over minor policy details: it centers on provisions that directly threaten the constitutional standing and real-world independence of the entire judiciary. The court emphasizes that any legitimate constitutional amendment should permanently strengthen the judiciary’s independence, expertise, and overall quality – a standard the current proposal fails to meet by a wide margin.
Contrary to framing that casts the judiciary as an opponent of reform, the court makes clear it has consistently supported constructive, collaborative change through years of consultations, congressional discussions, and back-and-forth correspondence. The judiciary itself has put forward its own proposals for constitutional and legal adjustments, which were previously discussed with President Jennifer Simons, and the court says it remains committed to dialogue rather than confrontation. However, it warns that the cumulative effect of the individual measures included in the current package adds up to a dangerous weakening of institutional checks and balances.
“We do not oppose change,” the court wrote in its official letter. “But we oppose any development that weakens the constitutional position of the judiciary, and thus the entire rule of law.” The court has not ruled out taking formal action to protect judicial independence if the proposals move forward, stating it will take “appropriate measures” in the interest of safeguarding the branch’s autonomy.
Beyond core constitutional concerns, the court has also pushed back on proposed changes to the structure of Suriname’s Public Prosecution Service (OM). Reform proponents have scrapped the existing framework of a College of Prosecutors-General in favor of a new governing Board of Directors, composed of the Prosecutor-General and between two to four Attorneys-General. Critically, the court is entirely excluded from the process of nominating, appointing, and removing these Attorneys-General, a change the judiciary says removes a key check on political interference.
The court notes that the OM’s own proposal to reorganize its existing Management Team into a dedicated OM Council, with clear role divisions and portfolio responsibilities for different officials, has been completely sidelined by proponents. Additionally, the court’s own proposal for a rotation system for senior leadership roles – which would replace lifetime appointments for the Court President and Prosecutor-General with seven-year terms – has been gutted: reform proponents only apply the seven-year limit to the Prosecutor-General, dropping the limit for the court presidency. To guard against political interference, the court proposed that Attorneys-General should receive lifetime appointments after formal review and recommendation from the judiciary, a standard international practice for checks and balances, but this provision was also cut from the proposal.
The reforms also create new questions around a proposed change to retirement ages: the bill lowers the retirement age to 60 for OM members and 65 for the Prosecutor-General, but does not extend the same change to sitting judges, who are part of the same judicial branch. The court says it cannot find any logical justification for this unequal treatment.
Another major point of contention is the sidelining of judicial expertise in the drafting process. “Carefully developed proposals worked out with experienced experts have been set aside without any substantive consultation,” the court states. For example, a long-held plan to establish multi-judge panels in first-instance courts, which would enable critical specialization for judges to handle complex cases, has not been enshrined in law, leaving the reform dead in the water.
The introduction of cassation proceedings (a process for reviewing lower court judgments) also lacks critical transitional rules, which the court says will immediately create legal uncertainty for ordinary citizens with ongoing cases. The provision allowing cassation in the public interest of upholding the law has also been entirely cut from the proposal. At the same time, qualification requirements for judges serving on Suriname’s highest court have been watered down: the existing requirement of 10 years of experience as a judge is eliminated, as is lifetime appointment, with reform proponents only requiring that candidates be 40 years old as a practicing jurist to serve on the highest appellate court. Finally, the proposed changes eliminate accumulated financial rights and benefits for both sitting and retired judges.
In closing, the court expressed its hope that the national legislature will prioritize protecting Suriname’s democratic rule of law. “We trust that protecting the democratic rule of law and strengthening the constitutional position of the judiciary is also part of the mission of your Parliament, as the highest organ of the state,” the letter reads. Copies of the official letter have been distributed to the president, the minister of justice, professional associations for lawyers, notaries, bailiffs and court clerks, and the court staff union to raise broad awareness of the judiciary’s concerns.
