‘The president cannot communicate with the director through the media’
Text and image Jason Pinas
PARAMARIBO — “As far as we are concerned, Ms. Wendy Jap-A-Joe is still the director of the Telecommunications Authority of Suriname. The supervisory board is not authorized to remove her.” Lawyer Chandra Algoe, who acts on behalf of Jap-A-Joe, said this repeatedly on Sunday during two summary proceedings. Both cases concern the directorship of Jap-A-Joe and the transfer, which according to the council should have been a fact since October 20. Because she refuses to resign, despite the fact that her five-year appointment resolution has already expired, the supervisory board led by chairman of the board Emanuel Scheek has asked the judge for a ruling.
However, Jap-A-Joe believes that her position as director has not automatically ended. Through her own summary proceedings, she is asking Judge Robert Praag to stop the transfer and other measures against her. The judge offered the parties the opportunity to reach a settlement, but both refused. He will therefore deliver judgment in both cases today (Monday).
“She cannot simply stop being a director from one day to the next. There is no board decision from which we can deduce that she is no longer a director.”“
Lawyer Chandra Algoe
Communication must be formal
Jap-A-Joe refused to answer questions after the hearing the True Time. In court she said that she understood “head over heels” that she is no longer a director and that shortly afterwards the supervisory board tried to get her out of the TAS building with the police. “I did not see it coming. Afterwards I heard the president through the media with a statement. The president says that she works with the law, but I am not going to draw any conclusions from that,” Jap-A-Joe responded to questions from the judge.
Algoe believes that the supervisory board started a smear campaign against her client when, among other things, he refused to cooperate with a quick scan proposed by the board. “There has been no formal communication with her at all. The president cannot communicate with the director through the media. If they want her gone, that is possible, but it must be done in the right way. Report it to her properly and she will look for something else, because no one is born as a director. But she cannot simply stop being a director from one day to the next. There is no board decision from which we can deduce that she is no longer a director,” the lawyer stated.
Agreement not above the law
Scheek has refuted Jap-A-Joe’s arguments and stated that she had indeed been informed that her appointment resolution would expire and that she had to prepare the transfer. He referred to a letter dated October 16 that the council sent to her by bailiff’s writ. There is also a letter in which Minister Raymond Landveld of Transport, Communications and Tourism instructs the TAS director to hand over the management of the company.
Lawyers Murwin Dubois and Gerold Sewcharan, who are acting for the supervisory board in the two summary proceedings, both emphasized that the law is clear about the term after which Jap-A-Joe becomes director. “The appointment resolution talks about a period of five years. So she is obliged to transfer. She cannot decide herself that she is not going to transfer, because a vacuum will be created. There will be no vacuum at all, because the law says that the council must take over the management,” said Dubois.
Employment contract without value
According to Sewcharan, Jap-A-Joe’s employment contract has no value because it was not concluded according to the correct procedures. For example, the agreement would not have been approved by the Council of Ministers and signed by the then chairman of the commissioner, while this is not allowed under the law. “There is something fishy about this document”, the lawyer noted.
Now that the appointment resolution has lapsed, he believes that Jap-A-Joe no longer has a foot to stand on and that decisions it now makes are not legally valid. Sewcharan therefore asked the judge to decide that all TAS resources should be made available to the council. “The supervisory board must be given the opportunity to manage. The interests of TAS must now be protected and they are important,” said the lawyer.
*Also read the review on our website: REVIEW — TAS: from administrative conflict to institutional crisis
