THE CONDEMNATION OF former FAI director Nitesh Ramlakhan to three years in prison, one of which is conditional, and the criminal complaint against former TAS director Wendy Jap-A-Joe and former chairman Harish Monorath once again expose a persistent problem: financial supervision at Surinamese public companies and state institutions has been inadequate for years. Directors are sometimes given so much space that it is only when the damage has been done that it is discovered what has happened behind the boardroom doors.
At FAI, the judge found that the former director abused his position, unlawfully retained company assets and granted financial benefits to a customer using false documents. There are serious accusations at TAS about an employment contract with exceptionally favorable conditions, which, according to the current supervisory board, has been kept out of regular administration for years. Whether criminal offenses were committed remains to be investigated.
Financial control should not depend on which political combination is in power
The Melkcentrale is an equally poignant example. Suspected malpractice came to light that, according to research, dates back to 2018. The initially reported embezzlement of more than SRD 17 million grew into a reported financial damage of almost SRD 350 million over three years. How could millions disappear for years without the responsible regulators intervening?
At the State Health Fund Foundation, dubious consultancy contracts, extensive payments and inadequate administrative accountability subsequently surfaced. Even agreements with managers of the Melkcentrale surfaced, even though, according to an internal report, they did not appear in the regular personnel administration. Once again, it had to be determined afterwards who had given permission for what.
The question that arises from all these issues is where the regulators were when these things unfolded. What do internal controls, audit reports and supervisory boards actually mean if such practices are not discovered in a timely manner?
The problem is deeper than individual directors who overstep their bounds. Suriname has a political culture in which public companies and state institutions are too often treated as extensions of government parties. Director positions and supervisory positions are regularly part of political appointment practices, where loyalty can outweigh expertise and independence. Those who owe their position to political patrons will not always be inclined to exercise critical supervision over those who appointed them.
When governments change, administrators are replaced, old files are dug up and irregularities are suddenly discovered that apparently no one wanted or could see for years. However, financial control should not depend on which political combination is in power.
The Court of Audit, accountants, responsible ministers and supervisory boards must actually fulfill their responsibilities. Annual accounts should be available on time, financial obligations auditable and directors accountable, regardless of their political affiliation.
Criminal prosecution afterwards is necessary where crimes have been committed, but can never replace proper supervision. As long as political loyalty provides protection and control mainly exists on paper, public companies remain a financial risk to society. Ultimately, it is not the political patron who pays the bill, but the taxpayer.
