THE ESCALATING GOVERNANCE CRISIS the Telecommunications Authority of Suriname (TAS) deserves a careful and balanced approach. The accusations made by the supervisory board and the management are serious enough to warrant thorough investigation. At the same time, this issue conceals a greater danger: political interference that can undermine the independence of a well-functioning institution.
After all, TAS is not just any government institution. It belongs to the rare group of state institutions that can support themselves financially and do not annually turn to the Minister of Finance and Planning for subsidies. At a time when the public purse is under pressure and several state-owned companies are dependent on taxpayers’ money, this is an achievement that deserves protection.
The government must prevent TAS from becoming a victim of political power games or the business interests of individuals
Precisely for this reason, care must be taken against political interference that goes beyond necessary supervision. An independent telecom authority must be able to carry out its tasks without political interests or changes in power influencing daily business operations. This is even more true for a sector that is crucial for the economic development and digital future of Suriname.
But independence should never be confused with untouchability. An institution that exercises public powers and manages public resources should not behave like a state within a state. If the supervisory board indeed does not gain sufficient insight into financial figures, annual accounts and other relevant documents, then this is a problem that should not be downplayed. Transparency and accountability are not favors granted, but legal obligations.
It is equally important that everyone involved adheres to their legally established role. The management manages the organization and is responsible for daily management. The supervisory board supervises this implementation. When supervisory directors tend to take the place of management, an unhealthy mix of responsibilities arises. Conversely, management may not frustrate supervision by withholding information or complicating control mechanisms.
The government has a delicate task in this. It must prevent TAS from becoming a victim of political power games or the business interests of individuals, but must also not look away when the authority’s business operations or performance of its tasks is jeopardized. If independent investigation shows that there has been improper management, financial irregularities or structural violations of governancerules, then decisive action must be taken.
Unfortunately, Suriname has plenty of examples of government companies where problems have simmered for years because responsible authorities did not intervene in time. The saying that gentle healers make stinking wounds has proven itself more than once. That should not happen at TAS. Protecting independence and maintaining accountability are not contradictory goals. On the contrary: only when both principles are monitored simultaneously can confidence in an important public institution be maintained.
