Suriname court seeks to uphold ex-president’s sentence
Former President and military strongman Desi Bouterse says the 20-year prison sentence “came as no surprise,” as acting Attorney General Carmen Rasam says his “victims were riddled with a hail of bullets” as the appeal case against Bouterse’s complicity in the murder of 15 men on December 8, 1982 continues.
“Every human being’s highest good is life. The defendant deprived these 15 victims of their right to life in a cold-blooded and calculated manner. The victims were hit with a shower of bullets fired at them from close range. “Relatives have not even had the opportunity to say farewell to their loved ones in a respectful manner,” Rasam added, requesting 20 years in prison without the possibility of parole for the former president.
However, in a statement made by Bouterse’s National Democratic Party (NDP), he stated that given the path of the criminal proceedings since its inception, the punishment did not surprise him.
Bouterse urges his fellow party members to remain calm in the statement.
Bouterse has filed an appeal because he disagrees with the verdict and denies any premeditation. He claims that factors in his favor have been continuously excluded from the procedural documentation.
According to the NDP, the criminal procedure must be completed.
Following a lengthy trial, the Court Martial of Suriname affirmed the 2019 military court verdict of a 20-year prison term on Bouterse in August 2021.
Bouterse and 23 co-defendants appeared in the Military Court in 2017, after the Court of Justice had previously rejected a motion to halt the trial. Former military officers and citizens were charged with the murders of 15 men on December 8, 1982, including journalists, military personnel, union leaders, lawyers, businessmen, and university professors.
The men were seized on the nights of December 7 and 8 and taken to Fort Zeelandia, the then headquarters of the Surinamese National Army, according to the prosecution. They claimed the men were tortured and then executed.
Earlier last month, attorney Irvin Kanhai, who also represents Iwan Dijksteel, Stephanus Dendoe, Benny Brondenstein, and Ernst Geffery, questioned the military judge’s independence, stating that one of the victims, André Kamperveen, and the judge share a grandfather. The men are appealing their 10-year prison sentence.
The Public Prosecution Service, on the other hand, argued that there was no need to hear witnesses during the appeal process, reiterating its call for Bouterse, 77, who led Suriname as head of a military government and de facto leader during the 1980s, to be arrested and given his unconditional prison sentence.
Bouterse was elected president in 2010, following a democratic election, and was re-elected in 2015.
“We are dealing with a suspect who has been president of the Republic of Suriname while this criminal case was on trial,” Rasam told the court on Tuesday. During the period of the criminal offense, the suspect was the highest responsible person in the country.
“The rulers at the time were not prepared to surrender the authority of government to the people and considered any resistance from society as an extreme threat to their control. Because returning to a democratic administration would require them to surrender over military authority, something they were unwilling to do. As a result, any action performed by outside parties to oppose or undermine military authority was prohibited,” Rasam claimed.
“Does the supposed regime transition as stated by the accused justify these hasty executions of the mentioned victims, who were inhumanly and ruthlessly deprived of their lives without any form of judicial process?” she asked the court.
“The victims, who, because of their location and the heavy security in the Fort, could never have posed a threat to this military administration. “There was no need to execute these helpless individuals in such a horrific way,” Rasam contended.
Based on the information presented, she believes Bouterse can be held accountable for the criminal offense, namely murder.
She claimed that Bouterse’s claims that an invasion was impending, that a jet flew overhead, and that bullets were fired in a panic scenario, or that Paul Bhagwandas given the order to shoot at the 15 victims without his approval, have no bearing.
According to the acting Attorney General, the evidence and witness statements show that the murders were planned and that Bouterse, Gefferie, Dendoe, Dijksteel, and Brondenstein all performed major roles and tasks in the crimes.
Rasam, citing statements from witnesses and Bouterse himself that he was present in the fort when some of the men were shot but did not suspect that the shots were used to kill the detainees, said she found it striking that Bouterse, as absolute ruler and commander, did not take any sanctions against the then battalion commander Bhagwandas when he officially reported to him that 15 of the 16 detainees had been shot during an escape attempt.
She also found it odd that, despite indicating that he did not trust Bhagwandas’ account for a second, Bouterse went to the government with the statement and later delivered it during a radio and television broadcast.
Rasam claims that Bouterse took no action against the battalion commander to whom he had given charge of Fort Zeelandia since the murders were carried out with his agreement or knowledge.
Several witnesses indicated during the criminal proceedings that fleeing the location where the detainees were detained was impossible.
Throughout the trial, Bouterse has claimed that he was not present at the fort when the men were shot.
Rasam spent time focusing on the political climate in Suriname in the run-up to the killings during her presentation.
She stated that following the 1980 coup, the military government restricted citizens’ rights and liberties, prompting widespread dissatisfaction. Parliament was dissolved, and the Constitution was rendered ineffective, among other things.
There was also a restriction on gatherings, the media was restricted, and political party activities were forbidden.
Rasam informed the Court that the military leadership, which wielded political and administrative control, had ruthlessly suppressed protests in order to prevent a return to constitutional rule.
