Tran­si­ti­o­nal pro­vi­si­on in Re­call Act vi­o­la­tes Con­sti­tu­ti­on

Times of Suriname - - ENGELS -

Jud­ge Sieg­li­ne Wijn­hard on Mon­day an­noun­ced that the tran­si­ti­o­nal pro­vi­si­on in Ar­ti­cle 5 of the amen­ded Re­call Act is in vi­o­la­ti­on of the Con­sti­tu­ti­on. The jud­ge ma­de the an­noun­ce­ment be­fo­re an­noun­cing the ru­ling in the law­s­uit that 3 po­li­ti­cal par­ties na­me­ly the Pro­gres­si­ve Re­form Par­ty (VHP), the Na­ti­o­nal Par­ty Su­ri­na­me (NPS), Pert­ja­jah Lu­hur, and the per­sons Bar­kat Mo­ha­bA­li and Prem Sard­joe had fi­led against Ray­mond Sapoen, Die­p­ak­koe­mar Chi­tan and the chair­wo­man of par­li­a­ment, Jen­ni­fer Geer­lings-Si­mons.

Ar­ti­cle 5 of the amen­ded Re­call Act clear­ly sta­tes that the law ap­plies to all ca­ses whe­re the jud­ge has not an­noun­ced a ru­ling yet. The jud­ge poin­ted out that Ar­ti­cle 5 is in vi­o­la­ti­on of Ar­ti­cle 131 pa­ra­g­raph 2 of the Con­sti­tu­ti­on clear­ly sta­tes that any in­ter­fe­ren­ce in on­go­ing legal pro­ceedings is pro­hi­bi­ted. She al­so poin­ted out that Ar­ti­cle 5 is al­so in vi­o­la­ti­on of gu­a­ran­tee­ing a fair tri­al as is men­ti­o­ned in Ar­ti­cle 10 of the Con­sti­tu­ti­on and in­ter­na­ti­o­nal hu­man rights tre­a­ties. She al­so re­fer­red to Ar­ti­cle 137 of the Con­sti­tu­ti­on and ex­plai­ned that she is not tes­ting the in­ner va­lue o the law but that she on­ly uti­li­zed the pos­si­bi­li­ty pro­vi­ded to her by the Con­sti­tu­ti­on. Nai­lah van Dijk, the de­fen­se at­tor­ney of Sapoen, Chi­tan and Geer­lingsSi­mons, poin­ted out that the jud­ge de­cla­red herself in­com­pe­tent with re­gards to Geer­lings-Si­mons in the ca­pa­ci­ty of chair­wo­man of par­li­a­ment. She ex­plai­ned that the jud­ge poin­ted out that the­re is no ci­vil dis­pu­te but a dis­pu­te of con­sti­tu­ti­o­nal laws. Van Dijk poin­ted out that the law­s­uit was re­jec­ted be­cau­se this is not a ca­se of sub­jec­ti­ve law but of a con­sti­tu­ti­o­nal law dis­pu­te. The jud­ge poin­ted out that it is plau­si­ble that Sapoen and Chi­tan we­re le­gal­ly re­cal­l­ed in ac­cor­dan­ce with the Re­call Act of 2005. Chan­dri­ka­persad San­tok­hi, chair­man of the VHP, told Ti­mes of Su­ri­na­me that he was plea­sed with the fact that the jud­ge had de­cla­red that the tran­si­ti­o­nal pro­vi­si­on in Ar­ti­cle 5 of the amen­ded Re­call Act is in vi­o­la­ti­on of the Con­sti­tu­ti­on.

Newspapers in Dutch

Newspapers from Suriname

© PressReader. All rights reserved.