Democracy
World’s Population
Population
HRF classifies Suriname as democratic.
Following independence from the Netherlands in 1975, Suriname’s emerging democracy collapsed when army general Dési Bouterse led a successful coup d’etat in 1980. His junta suspended the Constitution, dissolved the National Assembly, and persecuted government critics and journalists. A subsequent civil war (1986–1992) between Bouterse’s forces and the Surinamese Liberation Army further destabilized the country, ending only with peace accords in 1992 and a gradual return to civilian rule. Throughout its transition to democracy, Suriname has had to contend with the legacy of military authoritarian rule that left behind fragile political institutions and widespread practices of corruption. In 2010, Dési Bouterse became Suriname’s head of state once again, serving two terms as the country’s democratically elected president and the leader of the National Democratic Party (NDP). In 2019, Bouterse was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for crimes committed during his dictatorship. Following Bouterse’s conviction, the opposition Progressive Reform Party (VHP) won the 2020 elections. Then, in 2025, the NDP was elected back into power under the new leadership of President Jennifer Geerlings-Simons.
National elections in Suriname are largely free and fair. Large mainstream parties, primarily the NDP and the VHP, as well as smaller parties, regularly compete for seats in the National Assembly. Elections are typically conducted in a way that protects the integrity of the process, but administrative errors can hamper electoral procedures and undermine public trust. Moreover, the involvement of an executive body in electoral logistics, as well as the current appointment mechanisms for electoral officials and the absence of some electoral regulation, can limit the independence and capacity of Surinamese electoral oversight institutions. Nonetheless, independent electoral missions are regularly invited to provide additional oversight and have found elections to be generally free and fair.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people in Suriname are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. Media companies and civil society organizations and associations (CSOs) operate freely and are able to act as government watchdogs. Occasional infringements upon the rights of dissidents have been reported, including the harassment of journalists. However, rights violations against dissidents are usually investigated, and perpetrators are sometimes held accountable. Defamation charges are sometimes abused by officials to retaliate against journalists who publish criticism of the government. The right to peacefully assemble is guaranteed by the Surinamese Constitution and generally upheld by the government.
Institutions are independent and serve as a check on the government. The independence of the courts serves to protect the rights of dissidents and Suriname’s electoral integrity. However, operational opacity, delays, and institutional weaknesses can occasionally hinder institutions’ ability to act effectively. Institutions are also able to hold government officials accountable for wrongdoing, even as accountability mechanisms could be improved and strengthened. Efforts to reform how electoral institutions function under the Santokhi administration have not seriously weakened their operational independence.
National elections are free and fair. In Suriname’s multi-party system, large mainstream parties are able to freely compete for seats in the National Assembly alongside smaller parties. In the absence of a legislative majority, the party in power must form coalitions and build consensus to be able to effectively govern. Surinamese electoral oversight institutions manage elections; however, institutional weaknesses and the absence of basic electoral regulation limit their independence as well as their administrative and oversight capacities. Electoral reform undertaken under the Santokhi administration addressed some issues, but the implementation of the reform also resulted in some administrative challenges during the 2025 elections. The government frequently invites independent electoral observers to provide additional oversight of national elections.
In Suriname, the government has not unfairly barred a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections. Administrative errors affecting candidate registration and candidate lists have occurred during elections; however, these incidents do not represent an organized effort to bar candidates. The two largest parties, the incumbent NDP and the opposition VHP, regularly compete for the legislative majority and the presidency. However, the party in power rarely achieves an absolute majority. Suriname’s multi-party politics and competitive elections encourage coalition-building—majority governments have only taken office twice since 2000. As a result, the party in power must usually negotiate with smaller parties in the legislature as well as with the opposition to vote in a new president and effectively govern the country. The NDP and its coalition government have led Suriname since July 2025 under the leadership of President Jennifer Geerlings-Simons.
While parties and candidates are largely free to compete in elections, administrative errors have led to the unwarranted removal of some candidates from party lists. Electoral management and oversight in Suriname is primarily split between the Independent Electoral Council (OKB), the Chief Polling Station (CHS), and the Ministry of the Interior (BiZa). On the one hand, electoral officials have taken some steps to reduce errors and improve registration processes, including the successful launch of a digital registration system for the 2025 elections. However, changes in the electoral protocol prior to the 2025 elections also generated confusion around the complex candidate registration processes. Electoral observers from the Organization for American States (OAS) noted that the recent changes to how the CHS functions and coordinates with the Main Polling Stations led to an increase in errors during the 2025 elections. Deficiencies in how electoral justice operates and the absence of clear corrective mechanisms further exacerbated these issues. Nonetheless, the removal of candidates did not represent an intentionally organized effort to unfairly bar candidates; rather, it was a product of institutional and procedural flaws.
The Surinamese government has not engaged in voting irregularities or electoral fraud. Since the country’s transition to democracy in the 1990s, democratic governance in Suriname has been characterized by peaceful exchanges of power. Electoral complaints raised during the 2025 general elections were linked to procedural errors and pre-existing weaknesses in the country’s electoral framework, rather than to organized efforts to overturn the elections. On May 25, 2025, the NDP became the largest party in the National Assembly by a slim margin, obtaining 18 seats. The former incumbent party, the VHP, obtained 17 seats. Due to the competitive nature of the 2025 elections, the prevalence of administrative errors created political tensions and somewhat undermined public trust in the elections. Nonetheless, officials from the CHS and OKB conducted investigations into the electoral complaints before certifying election results in June 2025. Observers from the OAS also stated that they did not receive “any evidence of fraud or systemic irregularities in the elections,” but recommended that the new NDP government take additional steps to prevent and better address irregularities in future electoral cycles.
Independent electoral oversight has not been seriously undermined by the government. While elections are conducted in a fairly organized manner, there exists significant room to improve the capacities of the country’s national oversight institutions. Suriname possesses two primary electoral oversight institutions that manage, oversee, and certify elections: the OKB and the CHS. Meanwhile, some of the electoral logistics are managed by the Ministry of the Interior (BiZa). International electoral observers are frequently invited to oversee national elections in Suriname; they regularly praise the willingness of electoral officials to collaborate with external observers and have highlighted the peaceful and organized manner in which voting takes place. However, electoral observers have repeatedly underlined the need to strengthen the independence of national electoral institutions as well as the country’s legal electoral framework. For instance, the current appointment process for the OKB favors the party in power: the president of Suriname directly appoints electoral officials. Another factor that limits the independence of electoral oversight vis-à-vis the executive is the fact that the BiZa, which is an executive ministry, is involved in electoral processes. Observers from the OAS have recommended enacting changes to the OKB selection process as well as delegating electoral duties exclusively to independent electoral officials. Furthermore, the OAS has also highlighted that the legal framework for regulating campaign financing is largely absent and unenforceable. Political actors do not adhere strictly to financial reporting requirements, and electoral officials lack the powers to detect and sanction illicit campaign funding or other electoral crimes. Given that corruption and clientelist practices are perceived to be widespread by the public, expanded electoral oversight would help improve general trust in the electoral process.
It should be noted, however, that current limitations are a product of longstanding weaknesses in institutional design and important gaps in the law. These institutions have not been directly undermined by the party in power. Electoral reform initiated by the former VHP government did address some of the country’s electoral weaknesses. For instance, the 2025 general elections were the first to be successfully held under a proportional representation system that sought to address electoral and regional imbalances arising from the previous system that relied on voting districts. At the same time, electoral observers noted a lack of clear guidelines to implement some of the changes to the protocol, which led to some irregularities. Additional last-minute electoral reforms introduced by presidential decree, including a new protocol for assisting individuals with disabilities at polling stations, and the legal challenges raised in response to these decrees, also created confusion among electoral workers on Election Day.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and members of the general public are generally free to openly criticize or challenge the government in Suriname. Media workers, activists, and civil society leaders work in a largely favorable environment. Rights violations against dissidents are generally investigated, and perpetrators are sometimes held accountable. Journalists can sometimes face judicial harassment from public officials who abuse defamation charges to retaliate against negative coverage. Individuals have the right to peacefully protest and assemble, which is constitutionally protected and generally upheld by the government.
The government has not unfairly shut down independent, dissenting organizations. In Suriname, CSOs, labor unions, and other entities are able to organize effectively to publicly voice collective concerns over a wide range of issues, including corruption, rural development, and environmental protection. CSOs are able to formally register with the government through the Chamber of Commerce’s Register of Foundations. At the same time, many organizations and civil society networks function informally, such as the Citizens’ Initiative for Participation and Good Governance (BINI), which is a prominent local network that focuses on greater government transparency and promotes participatory democracy. At the same time, civil society groups have sometimes reported that excessive red tape and an unclear legal framework for non-profit organizations have hindered their ability to organize formally. Trade unions are politically active institutions that are able to freely voice their concerns and interests collectively via the General Alliance of Labour Unions in Suriname (AVV). The country’s media landscape is primarily populated by a few privately-owned media companies, most notably De Ware Tijd and De West. The limitations faced by media companies and CSOs in Suriname are primarily due to the financial difficulties of operating in a small and less densely populated country; dissenting organizations are not seriously limited by the government.
Surinamese government officials have not seriously intimidated or obstructed the work of independent, dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public. Occasional infringements on the rights of dissidents have been reported; in these cases, victims are usually able to file complaints against government officials. Journalists can also face the threat of judicial harassment due to weaknesses in Suriname’s defamation law that make it vulnerable to abuse. Nonetheless, journalists can effectively act as government watchdogs and publicly criticize the actions of the party in power. Since 2017, for example, the Surinamese Association of Journalists (SVJ) has played an active role in denouncing infringements upon the rights of journalists. In August 2024, the SVJ issued a statement in support of the media outlet Starnieuws and its editor-in-chief, Nita Ramcharan, after the then-Minister of Public Works Riad Nurmohamed of the Santokhi administration filed a defamation lawsuit against Ramcharan. The Starnieuws journalist had published an investigative report that criticized Normohamed’s handling of government procurement for a public works project that was to be funded by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). In retaliation, the former Minister demanded that the article be taken down, an apology issued, and that Starnieuws pay a significant fine of 300,000 Surinamese dollars ($8,500) per day the article remained online. In November 2024, District Judge Suzanne Chu ruled in favor of Starnieuws. Similarly, in May 2022, journalist Mones Nazarali was targeted with criminal charges of defamation by two police officers, who had been identified by Nazarali as being involved in alleged corruption in his broadcast for the outlet Actionnieuws Suriname. A few days after Nazarali was detained, the public prosecutor dropped the charges, and the journalist was released.
Journalists can also face other forms of harassment and intimidation while carrying out their work. In December 2021, journalist Jason Pinas was assaulted in front of the National Assembly by the bodyguards of then-Vice President Ronnie Brunswijk, who also illicitly seized and damaged Pinas’ phone. Pinas had been critical at times in his coverage of the Santokhi administration. In response, the SVJ and other media colleagues staged protests and other forms of collective action to support Pinas. In 2022, three bodyguards were charged with a suspended sentence for assaulting Pinas, who was also awarded financial compensation.
Protests or gatherings in Suriname have not been seriously and unfairly repressed by the government. Individuals are largely free to peacefully assemble and protest. Throughout 2024, different sectors of society engaged in protests critical of the Santokhi administration. In June 2024, members of the Saamaka indigenous groups gathered to peacefully protest a logging project that violated the community’s right to be consulted with regard to development projects in their lands. As a result of collective action, the project was paused until the rights of the Saamaka people were addressed. Between July and August 2024, farmers from Nickerie protested unfulfilled government promises to provide support during a drought.
Institutions are independent and serve as a check on the government. The courts have acted to protect the rights of dissidents as well as promote fair electoral conditions. At the same time, institutional weaknesses can hinder and delay action. Government institutions have demonstrated their ability to investigate and hold officials accountable for misdeeds, even as room for improving accountability mechanisms remains. Reform of electoral oversight bodies caused some confusion during the 2025 general elections, but this did not represent an effort to undermine these institutions.
Courts in Suriname have not frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled, the government’s attempts to repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies. While dissidents occasionally face judicial harassment via defamation lawsuits as a form of retaliation against criticism of government officials, Suriname’s judiciary has demonstrated that it can act to protect dissidents from being prosecuted for critical speech. When Starnieuws and its editor-in-chief, Nita Ramcharan, were served with a lawsuit by the then-Minister of Public Works, Riad Normohamed, Ramcharan and the media outlet faced the possibility of steep daily fees for publishing an online article that criticized Normohamed. Moreover, the Surinamese state initially joined the case as a co-plaintiff, a decision that was reversed by the Attorney General before the trial began. The judiciary ultimately recognized journalists’ right to publish information of public interest regarding the actions of a government official; instead, Judge Suzanne Chu ordered Nurmohamed to pay for the legal fees incurred by the outlet. According to members of the press, this high-profile case sets a positive judicial precedent for the freedom of the press. At the same time, free press organizations continue to urge the Surinamese to revisit their criminal and civil defamation law to prevent the abuse of these laws to retaliate against journalists.
Courts have not unfairly failed to check, or enabled, the government’s attempts to significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor. Suriname’s judiciary has issued rulings that have improved the country’s electoral system as well as reviewed some electoral complaints linked to errors on voting lists. Nonetheless, some room for improvement remains with regard to how electoral justice is conducted. The 2025 general elections were Suriname’s first elections held under a system of proportional representation—a change that the OAS electoral mission celebrated as a way to address regional disparities and ensure a more balanced legislative representation. The 2023 reform to the Constitution and electoral code that permitted this change followed a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling that found that the previous electoral system based on voting districts violated the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. On the other hand, the judicial review of electoral complaints in Suriname is limited by gaps in the law. Electoral law only provides one situation in which the judiciary can be appealed to in the context of electoral complaints: that of requests to correct or modify the voter list. There are other complaints, which must fit within specific categories, that are to be directed to electoral administrative institutions and can then be presented before the President; this creates the risk of executive interference. Finally, there is no protocol for handling electoral petitions or disputes that fall outside the narrow categories described in the law. During the 2025 general elections, some electoral disputes reached the High Court of Justice. These disputes centered on the administrative errors that prevented some individuals from registering their candidacies. While the Court recognized that the Surinamese government was responsible for these errors, it did not issue a ruling that rectified these errors so as not to delay the election process. As a result, the current electoral justice system in Suriname suffers from weaknesses that leave it vulnerable to influence, as well as a lack of capacity to address and rectify electoral complaints. It should be noted that these weaknesses are long-standing and have not been caused by the VHP or the incumbent NDP; however, the major governing parties have yet to address these issues during their administrations.
Judicial, legislative, or executive institutions have not frequently and unfairly failed to hold government officials accountable. Surinamese institutions, including the Attorney General’s Office, the Constitutional Court, and the High Court, have demonstrated their real independence and ability to hold top-level officials accountable. Most notably, the country’s institutions were able to successfully investigate and try a sitting president during his administration, despite attempts from the executive to undermine the proceedings. In November 2019, a military court convicted then-President Dési Bouterse for his role in the 1982 December Murders that took place when Bouterse was the military dictator of Suriname. In December 1982, officials under the orders of Bouterse kidnapped, tortured, and assassinated 15 prominent dissidents. As president (2010 – 2020) and head of the NDP party, Bouterse attempted to block investigations. Most notably, the ruling NDP party leveraged its power in the legislature to expand a 1989 Amnesty Law to cover the events of the December Murders. However, the military court ruled the expanded Amnesty Law to be unconstitutional and proceeded with the charges. This case also led to the belated inauguration of a new Constitutional Court under the Bouterse administration. The new Court also ruled the Amnesty Law to be unconstitutional in July 2021. Finally, in January 2024, the High Court definitively upheld Bouterse’s conviction and sentence to 20 years in prison, and an arrest warrant was issued for the former president and military leader.
HRF classifies Suriname as democratic.
Following independence from the Netherlands in 1975, Suriname’s emerging democracy collapsed when army general Dési Bouterse led a successful coup d’etat in 1980. His junta suspended the Constitution, dissolved the National Assembly, and persecuted government critics and journalists. A subsequent civil war (1986–1992) between Bouterse’s forces and the Surinamese Liberation Army further destabilized the country, ending only with peace accords in 1992 and a gradual return to civilian rule. Throughout its transition to democracy, Suriname has had to contend with the legacy of military authoritarian rule that left behind fragile political institutions and widespread practices of corruption. In 2010, Dési Bouterse became Suriname’s head of state once again, serving two terms as the country’s democratically elected president and the leader of the National Democratic Party (NDP). In 2019, Bouterse was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for crimes committed during his dictatorship. Following Bouterse’s conviction, the opposition Progressive Reform Party (VHP) won the 2020 elections. Then, in 2025, the NDP was elected back into power under the new leadership of President Jennifer Geerlings-Simons.
National elections in Suriname are largely free and fair. Large mainstream parties, primarily the NDP and the VHP, as well as smaller parties, regularly compete for seats in the National Assembly. Elections are typically conducted in a way that protects the integrity of the process, but administrative errors can hamper electoral procedures and undermine public trust. Moreover, the involvement of an executive body in electoral logistics, as well as the current appointment mechanisms for electoral officials and the absence of some electoral regulation, can limit the independence and capacity of Surinamese electoral oversight institutions. Nonetheless, independent electoral missions are regularly invited to provide additional oversight and have found elections to be generally free and fair.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people in Suriname are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government. Media companies and civil society organizations and associations (CSOs) operate freely and are able to act as government watchdogs. Occasional infringements upon the rights of dissidents have been reported, including the harassment of journalists. However, rights violations against dissidents are usually investigated, and perpetrators are sometimes held accountable. Defamation charges are sometimes abused by officials to retaliate against journalists who publish criticism of the government. The right to peacefully assemble is guaranteed by the Surinamese Constitution and generally upheld by the government.
Institutions are independent and serve as a check on the government. The independence of the courts serves to protect the rights of dissidents and Suriname’s electoral integrity. However, operational opacity, delays, and institutional weaknesses can occasionally hinder institutions’ ability to act effectively. Institutions are also able to hold government officials accountable for wrongdoing, even as accountability mechanisms could be improved and strengthened. Efforts to reform how electoral institutions function under the Santokhi administration have not seriously weakened their operational independence.
National elections are free and fair. In Suriname’s multi-party system, large mainstream parties are able to freely compete for seats in the National Assembly alongside smaller parties. In the absence of a legislative majority, the party in power must form coalitions and build consensus to be able to effectively govern. Surinamese electoral oversight institutions manage elections; however, institutional weaknesses and the absence of basic electoral regulation limit their independence as well as their administrative and oversight capacities. Electoral reform undertaken under the Santokhi administration addressed some issues, but the implementation of the reform also resulted in some administrative challenges during the 2025 elections. The government frequently invites independent electoral observers to provide additional oversight of national elections.
In Suriname, the government has not unfairly barred a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections. Administrative errors affecting candidate registration and candidate lists have occurred during elections; however, these incidents do not represent an organized effort to bar candidates. The two largest parties, the incumbent NDP and the opposition VHP, regularly compete for the legislative majority and the presidency. However, the party in power rarely achieves an absolute majority. Suriname’s multi-party politics and competitive elections encourage coalition-building—majority governments have only taken office twice since 2000. As a result, the party in power must usually negotiate with smaller parties in the legislature as well as with the opposition to vote in a new president and effectively govern the country. The NDP and its coalition government have led Suriname since July 2025 under the leadership of President Jennifer Geerlings-Simons.
While parties and candidates are largely free to compete in elections, administrative errors have led to the unwarranted removal of some candidates from party lists. Electoral management and oversight in Suriname is primarily split between the Independent Electoral Council (OKB), the Chief Polling Station (CHS), and the Ministry of the Interior (BiZa). On the one hand, electoral officials have taken some steps to reduce errors and improve registration processes, including the successful launch of a digital registration system for the 2025 elections. However, changes in the electoral protocol prior to the 2025 elections also generated confusion around the complex candidate registration processes. Electoral observers from the Organization for American States (OAS) noted that the recent changes to how the CHS functions and coordinates with the Main Polling Stations led to an increase in errors during the 2025 elections. Deficiencies in how electoral justice operates and the absence of clear corrective mechanisms further exacerbated these issues. Nonetheless, the removal of candidates did not represent an intentionally organized effort to unfairly bar candidates; rather, it was a product of institutional and procedural flaws.
The Surinamese government has not engaged in voting irregularities or electoral fraud. Since the country’s transition to democracy in the 1990s, democratic governance in Suriname has been characterized by peaceful exchanges of power. Electoral complaints raised during the 2025 general elections were linked to procedural errors and pre-existing weaknesses in the country’s electoral framework, rather than to organized efforts to overturn the elections. On May 25, 2025, the NDP became the largest party in the National Assembly by a slim margin, obtaining 18 seats. The former incumbent party, the VHP, obtained 17 seats. Due to the competitive nature of the 2025 elections, the prevalence of administrative errors created political tensions and somewhat undermined public trust in the elections. Nonetheless, officials from the CHS and OKB conducted investigations into the electoral complaints before certifying election results in June 2025. Observers from the OAS also stated that they did not receive “any evidence of fraud or systemic irregularities in the elections,” but recommended that the new NDP government take additional steps to prevent and better address irregularities in future electoral cycles.
Independent electoral oversight has not been seriously undermined by the government. While elections are conducted in a fairly organized manner, there exists significant room to improve the capacities of the country’s national oversight institutions. Suriname possesses two primary electoral oversight institutions that manage, oversee, and certify elections: the OKB and the CHS. Meanwhile, some of the electoral logistics are managed by the Ministry of the Interior (BiZa). International electoral observers are frequently invited to oversee national elections in Suriname; they regularly praise the willingness of electoral officials to collaborate with external observers and have highlighted the peaceful and organized manner in which voting takes place. However, electoral observers have repeatedly underlined the need to strengthen the independence of national electoral institutions as well as the country’s legal electoral framework. For instance, the current appointment process for the OKB favors the party in power: the president of Suriname directly appoints electoral officials. Another factor that limits the independence of electoral oversight vis-à-vis the executive is the fact that the BiZa, which is an executive ministry, is involved in electoral processes. Observers from the OAS have recommended enacting changes to the OKB selection process as well as delegating electoral duties exclusively to independent electoral officials. Furthermore, the OAS has also highlighted that the legal framework for regulating campaign financing is largely absent and unenforceable. Political actors do not adhere strictly to financial reporting requirements, and electoral officials lack the powers to detect and sanction illicit campaign funding or other electoral crimes. Given that corruption and clientelist practices are perceived to be widespread by the public, expanded electoral oversight would help improve general trust in the electoral process.
It should be noted, however, that current limitations are a product of longstanding weaknesses in institutional design and important gaps in the law. These institutions have not been directly undermined by the party in power. Electoral reform initiated by the former VHP government did address some of the country’s electoral weaknesses. For instance, the 2025 general elections were the first to be successfully held under a proportional representation system that sought to address electoral and regional imbalances arising from the previous system that relied on voting districts. At the same time, electoral observers noted a lack of clear guidelines to implement some of the changes to the protocol, which led to some irregularities. Additional last-minute electoral reforms introduced by presidential decree, including a new protocol for assisting individuals with disabilities at polling stations, and the legal challenges raised in response to these decrees, also created confusion among electoral workers on Election Day.
Independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and members of the general public are generally free to openly criticize or challenge the government in Suriname. Media workers, activists, and civil society leaders work in a largely favorable environment. Rights violations against dissidents are generally investigated, and perpetrators are sometimes held accountable. Journalists can sometimes face judicial harassment from public officials who abuse defamation charges to retaliate against negative coverage. Individuals have the right to peacefully protest and assemble, which is constitutionally protected and generally upheld by the government.
The government has not unfairly shut down independent, dissenting organizations. In Suriname, CSOs, labor unions, and other entities are able to organize effectively to publicly voice collective concerns over a wide range of issues, including corruption, rural development, and environmental protection. CSOs are able to formally register with the government through the Chamber of Commerce’s Register of Foundations. At the same time, many organizations and civil society networks function informally, such as the Citizens’ Initiative for Participation and Good Governance (BINI), which is a prominent local network that focuses on greater government transparency and promotes participatory democracy. At the same time, civil society groups have sometimes reported that excessive red tape and an unclear legal framework for non-profit organizations have hindered their ability to organize formally. Trade unions are politically active institutions that are able to freely voice their concerns and interests collectively via the General Alliance of Labour Unions in Suriname (AVV). The country’s media landscape is primarily populated by a few privately-owned media companies, most notably De Ware Tijd and De West. The limitations faced by media companies and CSOs in Suriname are primarily due to the financial difficulties of operating in a small and less densely populated country; dissenting organizations are not seriously limited by the government.
Surinamese government officials have not seriously intimidated or obstructed the work of independent, dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public. Occasional infringements on the rights of dissidents have been reported; in these cases, victims are usually able to file complaints against government officials. Journalists can also face the threat of judicial harassment due to weaknesses in Suriname’s defamation law that make it vulnerable to abuse. Nonetheless, journalists can effectively act as government watchdogs and publicly criticize the actions of the party in power. Since 2017, for example, the Surinamese Association of Journalists (SVJ) has played an active role in denouncing infringements upon the rights of journalists. In August 2024, the SVJ issued a statement in support of the media outlet Starnieuws and its editor-in-chief, Nita Ramcharan, after the then-Minister of Public Works Riad Nurmohamed of the Santokhi administration filed a defamation lawsuit against Ramcharan. The Starnieuws journalist had published an investigative report that criticized Normohamed’s handling of government procurement for a public works project that was to be funded by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). In retaliation, the former Minister demanded that the article be taken down, an apology issued, and that Starnieuws pay a significant fine of 300,000 Surinamese dollars ($8,500) per day the article remained online. In November 2024, District Judge Suzanne Chu ruled in favor of Starnieuws. Similarly, in May 2022, journalist Mones Nazarali was targeted with criminal charges of defamation by two police officers, who had been identified by Nazarali as being involved in alleged corruption in his broadcast for the outlet Actionnieuws Suriname. A few days after Nazarali was detained, the public prosecutor dropped the charges, and the journalist was released.
Journalists can also face other forms of harassment and intimidation while carrying out their work. In December 2021, journalist Jason Pinas was assaulted in front of the National Assembly by the bodyguards of then-Vice President Ronnie Brunswijk, who also illicitly seized and damaged Pinas’ phone. Pinas had been critical at times in his coverage of the Santokhi administration. In response, the SVJ and other media colleagues staged protests and other forms of collective action to support Pinas. In 2022, three bodyguards were charged with a suspended sentence for assaulting Pinas, who was also awarded financial compensation.
Protests or gatherings in Suriname have not been seriously and unfairly repressed by the government. Individuals are largely free to peacefully assemble and protest. Throughout 2024, different sectors of society engaged in protests critical of the Santokhi administration. In June 2024, members of the Saamaka indigenous groups gathered to peacefully protest a logging project that violated the community’s right to be consulted with regard to development projects in their lands. As a result of collective action, the project was paused until the rights of the Saamaka people were addressed. Between July and August 2024, farmers from Nickerie protested unfulfilled government promises to provide support during a drought.
Institutions are independent and serve as a check on the government. The courts have acted to protect the rights of dissidents as well as promote fair electoral conditions. At the same time, institutional weaknesses can hinder and delay action. Government institutions have demonstrated their ability to investigate and hold officials accountable for misdeeds, even as room for improving accountability mechanisms remains. Reform of electoral oversight bodies caused some confusion during the 2025 general elections, but this did not represent an effort to undermine these institutions.
Courts in Suriname have not frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled, the government’s attempts to repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies. While dissidents occasionally face judicial harassment via defamation lawsuits as a form of retaliation against criticism of government officials, Suriname’s judiciary has demonstrated that it can act to protect dissidents from being prosecuted for critical speech. When Starnieuws and its editor-in-chief, Nita Ramcharan, were served with a lawsuit by the then-Minister of Public Works, Riad Normohamed, Ramcharan and the media outlet faced the possibility of steep daily fees for publishing an online article that criticized Normohamed. Moreover, the Surinamese state initially joined the case as a co-plaintiff, a decision that was reversed by the Attorney General before the trial began. The judiciary ultimately recognized journalists’ right to publish information of public interest regarding the actions of a government official; instead, Judge Suzanne Chu ordered Nurmohamed to pay for the legal fees incurred by the outlet. According to members of the press, this high-profile case sets a positive judicial precedent for the freedom of the press. At the same time, free press organizations continue to urge the Surinamese to revisit their criminal and civil defamation law to prevent the abuse of these laws to retaliate against journalists.
Courts have not unfairly failed to check, or enabled, the government’s attempts to significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor. Suriname’s judiciary has issued rulings that have improved the country’s electoral system as well as reviewed some electoral complaints linked to errors on voting lists. Nonetheless, some room for improvement remains with regard to how electoral justice is conducted. The 2025 general elections were Suriname’s first elections held under a system of proportional representation—a change that the OAS electoral mission celebrated as a way to address regional disparities and ensure a more balanced legislative representation. The 2023 reform to the Constitution and electoral code that permitted this change followed a 2022 Constitutional Court ruling that found that the previous electoral system based on voting districts violated the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. On the other hand, the judicial review of electoral complaints in Suriname is limited by gaps in the law. Electoral law only provides one situation in which the judiciary can be appealed to in the context of electoral complaints: that of requests to correct or modify the voter list. There are other complaints, which must fit within specific categories, that are to be directed to electoral administrative institutions and can then be presented before the President; this creates the risk of executive interference. Finally, there is no protocol for handling electoral petitions or disputes that fall outside the narrow categories described in the law. During the 2025 general elections, some electoral disputes reached the High Court of Justice. These disputes centered on the administrative errors that prevented some individuals from registering their candidacies. While the Court recognized that the Surinamese government was responsible for these errors, it did not issue a ruling that rectified these errors so as not to delay the election process. As a result, the current electoral justice system in Suriname suffers from weaknesses that leave it vulnerable to influence, as well as a lack of capacity to address and rectify electoral complaints. It should be noted that these weaknesses are long-standing and have not been caused by the VHP or the incumbent NDP; however, the major governing parties have yet to address these issues during their administrations.
Judicial, legislative, or executive institutions have not frequently and unfairly failed to hold government officials accountable. Surinamese institutions, including the Attorney General’s Office, the Constitutional Court, and the High Court, have demonstrated their real independence and ability to hold top-level officials accountable. Most notably, the country’s institutions were able to successfully investigate and try a sitting president during his administration, despite attempts from the executive to undermine the proceedings. In November 2019, a military court convicted then-President Dési Bouterse for his role in the 1982 December Murders that took place when Bouterse was the military dictator of Suriname. In December 1982, officials under the orders of Bouterse kidnapped, tortured, and assassinated 15 prominent dissidents. As president (2010 – 2020) and head of the NDP party, Bouterse attempted to block investigations. Most notably, the ruling NDP party leveraged its power in the legislature to expand a 1989 Amnesty Law to cover the events of the December Murders. However, the military court ruled the expanded Amnesty Law to be unconstitutional and proceeded with the charges. This case also led to the belated inauguration of a new Constitutional Court under the Bouterse administration. The new Court also ruled the Amnesty Law to be unconstitutional in July 2021. Finally, in January 2024, the High Court definitively upheld Bouterse’s conviction and sentence to 20 years in prison, and an arrest warrant was issued for the former president and military leader.
