THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT OF ex-director Wendy Jap-A-Joe at the Telecommunications Authority Suriname (TAS) and the deportation of the Mennonites are at first glance two separate matters. Yet they have a lot in common. They painfully expose how legal regulations, procedures and responsibilities are handled in Suriname. The fact that there is a lot of fiddling around in the margins is a public secret. But every now and then it comes to light, often when the former partners in crime collide with each other.
Not only government officials, but also companies and citizens who later present themselves as weak victims, do not go unpunished. They often start something knowing full well that not all legal requirements have been met. As a top lawyer, Minister Harish Monorath should have known better. But as an academic and given the top position, Jap-A-Joe should also have known better that the legal basis of the employment contract was not self-evident. Yet she entered into this when she should at least have had its legal tenability investigated. This smacks of hand-holding to say the least.
The judge as a structural repair service for failing and corrupt administration is undesirable
Also with the Mennonite issue, it would be unjustified to only examine the actions of the government. Given their international orientation, the Mennonite leaders are not stupid guys. How reckless are you if you invest heavily without having the most essential permits, including those for residence? Within closed religious communities, ordinary members – including women and children – often blindly trust their leaders. Above all, they are the true victims of this.
In both cases things went wrong and the alleged injured parties played the victim card. Fortunately, there is the judge. This weighs up interests, in which humanitarian grounds or disproportionate disadvantage may also be taken into account. However, the economic importance of Suriname Green Energy Agriculture did not outweigh the state’s authority to enforce immigration law. This is what the summary proceedings judge ruled. In the TAS case, the judge also set limits on the legal position resulting from the employment contract. In the resulting confusion, the judge provides legal clarity as a final point. Good thing, too.
At the same time, care must be taken to ensure that judges do not always have to act as a flying goalkeeper. If they have to continuously correct the consequences of what directors and other parties involved have caused, legal certainty is compromised. The judge as a structural repair service for failing and corrupt administration is undesirable. This also affects the confidence of citizens, entrepreneurs and international partners.
A constitutional state cannot function if the boundaries of the law are constantly consciously stretched or violated and the judge is then expected to put things right. That is why corruption, conflicts of interest and administrative arbitrariness must be vigorously combated. In addition to stricter laws – through parliament – consistent enforcement and actual sanctions are indispensable.
