By Ivan Cairo
PARAMARIBO, Suriname, Jun 5, CMC- Suriname’s National Assembly (DNA)has approved requests by the Public Prosecution Service (OM) to criminally prosecute three former government ministers for offenses allegedly committed while in office.
Despite sharp criticism of the Attorney General’s approach and extensive debate over the scope of the Law on the Indictment and Prosecution of Political Office Holders (WIPA), a broad parliamentary majority ultimately concluded that the courts should examine the cases involving former home affairs minister, Bronto Somohardjo, former public works minister Riad Nurmohamed, and former central bank governor and finance minister, Gillmore Hoefdraad
Thirty-three members unanimously voted in favour of the motion concerning Somohardjo and Nurmohamed, while in Hoefdraad’s case, 29 members voted in favor and five against.
Members of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) faction of the coalition government left the chamber during several votes to abstain from participating. In Hoefdraad’s case, several NDP lawmakers voted against the motion.
National Assembly Speaker Ashwin Adhin abstained in all three cases.
The Public Prosecution Service accuses all three former ministers, of violating Suriname’s Anti-Corruption Law among other charges.
Following the vote, the Public Prosecution Service said parliament’s approval does not constitute a finding of guilt.
“The approval by DNA does not mean that guilt has been established. The assessment of the facts and criminal liability is reserved exclusively for the courts,” the OM said in a statement.
A recurring theme throughout the debate was that an indictment does not amount to a conviction. Several parliamentary factions stressed that it is not the legislature’s role to evaluate evidence or determine whether the former ministers actually committed criminal offenses.
One legislator, Steven Reyme said that the Assembly must remain within the role assigned to it by law and the debate was not primarily about individuals but about the functioning of the rule of law.
“We do not assess the evidence, nor do we determine guilt. We assess only whether prosecution should be considered in the general political and administrative interest,” Reyme said.
He warned that Parliament must not transform itself into a courtroom, arguing also that political power should never serve as a shield against investigation or prosecution.
Somohardjo, an opposition legislator, in one of the most striking moments of the session, made it clear that he did not favour any form of political protection.
Somohardjo told legislators that the rules applying to all citizens should also apply to him and that he has always been willing from the outset to defend himself before a court of law.
“I am not seeking protection from politics. I believe that no one stands above the people,” he said, directly addressing lawmakers who, out of loyalty to him, might have been considering abstaining from the vote.
“I call on those who may want to vote against this to vote in favour. Because later I do not want to hear that Bronto sought protection, and I do not want to hear that Bronto sought help,” he said, adding that he has no intention of evading any legal proceedings.
Former vice president and leader of the General Liberation and Development Party (ABOP), Ronnie Brunswijk said that the fundamental rule-of-law principle is that every suspect is innocent until proven guilty by a competent court.
“In a state governed by the rule of law, a fundamental principle applies: everyone is presumed innocent until the contrary has been established by a competent judge,” he said, adding that the courts should allow former ministers to defend themselves.
He told legislators that if the courts ultimately find them not guilty, people should accept that decision without question.
But the remarks caused some controversy as Brunswijk referred to alleged agreements within parliament concerning the handling of the prosecution requests and suggested that attempts had been made to delay proceedings until the statutory deadline expired.
Despite Parliament’s eventual approval of the requests, several lawmakers voiced strong criticism of the Attorney General’s conduct and the information provided to the parliamentary investigative committee.
One government legislator, Jennifer Vreedzaam said that parliament must receive sufficient information to make a careful and informed decision, noting that the DNA has once again, within a relatively short period, been confronted with requests to prosecute political office holders.
Vreedzaam warned against the danger of politically motivated prosecutions and recalled that WIPA was specifically designed to prevent criminal law from being used as a tool against political opponents.
She also called for clearer integrity standards for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. In her view, parliament should not only deal with individual cases but should also work toward strengthening integrity throughout the state apparatus.
Committee chairman Rabin Parmessar aso criticised the Attorney General’s stance, adding that the investigative committee did not receive all the information necessary to fully assess the requests.
Parmessar said that parliament must avoid becoming a “rubber stamp” and deserves adequate information to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.
The leader of the main opposition Progressive Reform Party (VHP), Asiskumar Gajadien, rejected the notion that parliament should engage in a substantive review of criminal cases.
“Today we are not called upon to determine guilt or innocence. Nor are we called upon to retry a criminal case or anticipate a judicial ruling. That responsibility rests exclusively with the independent judiciary,” he said.
According to Gajadien, DNA’s sole responsibility is to determine whether the Public Prosecution Service has presented sufficient facts and circumstances to justify bringing the cases before a judge. That assessment, he stressed, does not imply guilt on the part of the former ministers.
He also warned against parliament assuming the role of either prosecutors or judges by substantively evaluating prosecutorial decisions.
Another opposition legislator, Raymond Sapoen spoke of the difference between prosecution and a determination of guilt, adding that the term “indictment” is often misunderstood by the public.
Sapoen criticised the Attorney General’s refusal to personally appear before the parliamentary committee. He argued that such an appearance could have clarified several procedural issues.
“The Attorney General’s blunt refusal to address the committee amounts to a disavowal of parliament—or perhaps I should say it was extremely discourteous.”
The National Party of Suriname (NPS), which is a key partner in the coalition government here, said that WIPA was never intended to place politicians above the law.
Jerrel Pawiroredjo said that parliament’s task merely involves determining whether prosecution should be permitted, not assessing the merits of criminal cases.
Another coalition member, Brotherhood and Unity in Politics (BEP), through its leader, Ronny Asabina, expressed support for the prosecution’s requests, saying that the the same standards should apply to everyone, regardless of political position or social status.
But Asabina was highly critical of the current legal framework, saying that WIPA creates the impression that politicians are treated differently from ordinary citizens.
“This law, known as WIPA, is a bad law. In fact, we believe that the constitutional provision from which this law originates should be removed from our Constitution as a matter of urgency.”
As a result of the parliament approval, the Public Prosecution Service can now proceed with preparing the criminal cases.
But political observers note that whether the former ministers will ultimately stand trial and whether sufficient evidence exists to secure convictions remains a matter for the courts to determine at a later stage.
CMC/ic/ir/2026