THE POSITION OF the NDP faction in the National Assembly regarding the demand for the indictment of former minister Riad Nurmohamed raises fundamental questions about political consistency, credibility and respect for the rule of law.
After all, less than two and a half years ago it was the NDP that took the lead in the Pan-American Real Estate issue. During the January 2024 budget debate, NDP parliamentarians, led by Patrick Kensenhuis, pushed for a criminal investigation. Suspicions of corruption were openly discussed. Assembly members asked critical questions, demanded clarification and requested the Attorney General to investigate the matter. In addition, the then chairman of parliament Marinus Bee was written to with the request to engage the Court of Audit as the supervisory body of parliament to investigate the legality of the payments.
Even outside parliament, NDP leaders were not gentle in their words. In the media and on political stages, the Pan-American affair was used as an example of alleged mismanagement. The message was clear: the truth had to be revealed and justice had to do its job.
Now that the same Attorney General has done exactly that, namely had a preliminary investigation conducted and subsequently submitted a claim to Parliament in accordance with the Incrimination of Political Office Holders Act (WIPA), the NDP’s attitude suddenly seems to have changed drastically. The faction, led by Rabin Parmessar, who was also chairman of the parliamentary investigation committee, refused to cooperate in approving the claim and abstained from voting.
That raises a simple question: what has changed? Not the facts. Not the legal procedure. Not the authority of the Public Prosecution Service. The only thing that has changed essentially is the political context.
When a party has been calling for years for the justice department to investigate and then refuses to cooperate as soon as the justice department asks for further prosecution options based on a preliminary investigation, the impression of political expediency inevitably arises. Moreover, the argument that the claim is not sufficiently substantiated does not sound convincing.
The Wipa procedure is precisely intended to enable the Public Prosecution Service to continue a full criminal investigation. An indictment is not a conviction. It doesn’t mean anyone is guilty. It only means that the Public Prosecution Service is given permission to continue the investigation without constitutional obstacles.
That is precisely why the NDP’s attitude is all the more troubling. Because while the party abstained from voting in the cases of ex-ministers Nurmohamed and Bronto Somohardjo, it was almost certain in advance that it would vigorously oppose the claim against its political ally, former Minister of Finance and Planning, Gillmore Hoefdraad. This creates the impression that legal principles have been subordinated to political loyalties.
The events surrounding Somohardjo only reinforce that image. By ultimately keeping him out of the reach of prosecution, the impression could be given that they acted consistently. But that appearance of neutrality is not convincing. It rather seems as if two other ex-ministers (Somohardjo and Nurmohamed) were drawn into a political strategy that was essentially aimed at protecting one ally: Hoefdraad.
The rule of law requires something different. It requires that political parties give the Public Prosecution Service the space to do its work, regardless of party political interests. Not because those involved are guilty, but precisely because their innocence or guilt can only be determined after a careful and independent investigation.
Anyone who asked for an investigation yesterday would find it difficult to credibly explain today why the same investigation should not continue. That is not a matter of politics. That’s a matter of principle. And principles should not change with the power relations of the day.-.
