SCORED IN 2025 Suriname 38 on the Corruption Perceptions Index 2025 of Transparency International on a scale of zero to one hundred. Zero stands for very corrupt and one hundred for very clean. The score of 38 is a decline of two points compared to 2024, when Suriname scored forty points. With 38 points, Suriname is below the average of the Americas and below neighboring country Guyana, which scores two points higher with forty.
Although a perception does not necessarily have to be a reality, it can be stated that the general characteristics associated with a score of 38 show many similarities with the public sector in Suriname. In particular, Suriname’s weak institutions, inadequate enforcement and laws that are not or insufficiently enforced seem tailor-made for Suriname.
there is a law, the provisions in it are quite clear, but then there is no adequate enforcement when people fail to fulfill their legal duty
One of those weak institutions is the Anti-Corruption Commission. This was established in 2023 and functions on the basis of a law that was amended in 2017. The committee needed until 2025 to create the Declaration of Income and Assets (VIV). The first call was made in November that year. Public officials would have until February 17, 2026 to report with their VIV.
The law provides a period of three months within which someone who accepts a new position in the government must register. Anyone who does not do so commits an offense and can be prosecuted for this. However, the Attorney General decided to extend the registration deadline until August 2026 for people who already held public office before November 2025.
However, from answers to questions from the True Time It appears to both the police and the Public Prosecution Service that there is not yet a procedure in place to hold officials who do not register responsible. This raises the question of whether the Anti-Corruption Commission will not take on the character of a paper tiger: there is a law, the provisions therein are quite clear, but then there is no adequate enforcement when people fail to comply with their legal duty.
It is also remarkable the obligation of confidentiality that the committee says it has. As a result, it cannot even indicate how many people in the group that is required to do so have actually submitted a VIV. It is understandable that an Anti-Corruption Commission maintains confidentiality when it comes to individual data. But if it cannot even provide anonymized numbers, this could undermine the transparency and therefore the supervisory function of such a committee.
It is also questionable whether what has now happened – a postponement of six months, from February to August and then no action – is legal. This gives people who have to complete their VIV a lot of time to make changes to their financial position. For example, concessions can be placed in the names of others, as recently became known in connection with an important public official. Providing that kind of space could never have been the legislator’s intention.
