Ex-ministers Somohardjo, Nurmohamed and Hoefdraad charged by DNA
PARAMARIBO — Parliament Speaker Ashwin Adhin (NDP) did not participate in the vote on the Attorney General’s (PG) request to indict three former political office holders. In an extensive motivation for voting, Adhin explained that the currently available file does not provide sufficient factual and procedural clarity for him to arrive at a responsible decision. Because the rules of parliament do not require a formal ‘abstention’ during a vote, he temporarily hands over the gavel and leaves the room.
In the case of ex-minister Riad Nurmohamed, the claim was granted by 33 votes in favor and two against (Pertjajah Luhur). With 29 votes in favor and five against, parliament approved the claim against former Minister of Finance Gillmore Hoefdraad. In each vote, some NDP faction members abstained by leaving the room, while in Hoefdraad’s case they voted against.
“In my personal opinion, a number of procedural and factual aspects require further clarification before a political-administrative assessment can be made responsibly”
DNA Chairman Ashwin Adhin
As for the claim against ex-minister Bronto Somohardjo, it was approved unanimously by 32 votes. Somohardjo voted for his own indictment, as he had indicated from the start of this case.
Insufficient basis for a responsible judgement
The core of Adhin’s decision lies in the legal task that the National Assembly (DNA) has under Article 5 of the Indictment and Prosecution of Political Office Holders Act (WIPA). This law prescribes that parliament must solely assess whether prosecution is necessary in the public interest. According to Adhin, this requires extremely careful consideration based on a proper and conclusive investigation by the Senate committee.
However, after studying the documents, the chairman concludes that there are still too many open questions. “With regard to the present claim, I must conclude that, in my personal opinion, a number of procedural and factual aspects require further clarification before a political-administrative assessment can be made in a responsible manner. In my assessment, it has not proven convincing to me that I am convinced on the basis of the currently available material that this standard has been met.”
Adhin strongly emphasized that his decision does not constitute a judgment on the legal merits of the claim itself. After all, the substantive assessment of the accusations falls under the monopoly of the Public Prosecution Service (OM). The decision not to vote arises purely from his own inability to make a politically and administratively responsible choice at this specific moment.
Procedural step: temporary departure from the room
Article 55 of DNA’s rules of procedure only has two flavors when voting: for or against. A formal ‘abstention’ as a voting option does not exist within the Surinamese parliamentary system. Anyone who wants to abstain from a vote can only legally do so by not physically participating in the vote and leaving the meeting room.
To prevent the meeting from being left adrift during the vote, Adhin used Article 9 of the regulations for the transfer of the gavel. The chairmanship is temporarily transferred to the first replacement, Ivanildo Plein. The Vice-President could not take on this task as he had previously spoken on the issue. This also results in his physical absence; During the actual vote, Adhin will remain outside the hall, making his abstention a formal fact.
No voting advice for the council
Finally, Adhin underlined that his personal step should in no way be interpreted as a political signal or voting advice to the rest of parliament. He indicated that he had full respect for the individual decision that each DNA member must make for himself. “That decision is and remains with each member individually,” said Adhin, after which he formally handed over the meeting to his replacement.
