SUBMITTED
The deprivation of liberty of Lui Jianming, known as ‘Andy’, in the arson of a white Raptor raises serious questions about the care of the Public Prosecution Service. On October 21, 2026, the Court of Justice of Suriname ruled his arrest and detention unlawful and ordered his immediate release. Such a judgment requires explanation and responsibility from the prosecuting authority.
The case concerns the white Raptor that was set on fire on October 12, 2026. The arrested arson suspect appointed Andy, chairman of the Chinese association, as the client. That accusation subsequently led to his arrest and detention.
“It would behoove the Public Prosecution Service to take responsibility for the established unlawfulness and to offer appropriate apologies”
According to the defense, the incriminating statements showed material inconsistencies and lacked supporting evidence showing cooperation or communication between Andy and the arrested suspect. This raises the question of how critically the accusation was investigated before deprivation of liberty was taken.
A serious allegation deserves thorough investigation. Especially when someone appoints another person as a client, the reliability of that statement and the available support must be carefully assessed. The seriousness of the arson makes an investigation necessary, but does not absolve the prosecuting authority from the duty to critically assess the involvement of each individual suspect.
According to the defense, the Public Prosecution Service was unable to convincingly answer essential questions about the file and the basis for the deprivation of liberty during the hearing at the Court of Justice. The judgment of the Court of Justice makes it clear that the arrest and detention did not pass the judicial test. That judgment should not be downplayed.
The decision on the deprivation of liberty is not in itself an acquittal, nor does it establish that the accusation was deliberately fabricated. The criticism of the Public Prosecution Service must therefore remain precise: this concerns responsibility for a deprivation of liberty that has been found unlawful by the Court of Justice. That’s serious enough.
Moreover, for the person concerned, the consequences do not end when they leave the cell house. Detention and a public accusation can have a profound impact on personal life, professional practice and reputation. Especially when someone fulfills a social function, the damage to his good name can have a long lasting effect. The material and immaterial damage stated by Andy therefore deserves serious attention.
The Public Prosecution Service may be expected to explain what the deprivation of liberty was based on, how the incriminating statements were assessed and what shortcomings emerged from the judicial decision. It should also be clear what measures are being taken to prevent recurrence. This accountability can take place with respect for the confidentiality of the research and the rights of all those involved.
It would behoove the Public Prosecution Service to take responsibility for the established unlawfulness and to offer appropriate apologies. The authority of a prosecuting authority is partly determined by the way in which it deals with judicial criticism and its own shortcomings.
Citizens must be able to trust that deprivation of liberty is carefully prepared, properly substantiated and critically assessed. The Court of Justice intervened in this case. It is now up to the Public Prosecution Service to show what consequences it attaches to that judgment.
Lazy ‘Andy’ Jianming
The editorial staff of the True Time allows readers to submit articles for publication. In principle, all submitted articles will be included, unless the content is harmful, hurtful or insulting to third parties. Pieces posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the True Time. The editors reserve the right not to publish articles, or to shorten or edit them without taking them out of context.
