Criticism of the government, differing political views or active participation in discussions on social media should not in themselves constitute grounds for digital police investigations.
Lalmahomed emphasises that modernising criminal procedural law is necessary to combat crime more effectively. Evidence is increasingly found on mobile phones, computers, servers and digital communication platforms. According to him, Suriname must therefore have adequate legal instruments to investigate criminal offences. At the same time, he warns that expanding investigative powers must be accompanied by clear legal limits and effective oversight.
“A law is not good because it gives the government more powers. A law is good when it grants the right powers, under clear conditions, with effective oversight and sufficient protection against abuse,” Lalmahomed states.
Political opinions must not be grounds for investigation
An important point in his address is the protection of citizens who express criticism of political and social developments. According to Lalmahomed, young people and other citizens must be able to trust that investigative powers will be used only on the basis of concrete suspicions and legal criteria.
“Criticism of the government is not in itself a criminal offence. A differing opinion is not evidence of criminality. And an active presence on social media is not a free pass for an unlimited investigation into someone’s private life,” he emphasises.
The parliamentarian believes this protection is important not only for young people who speak out politically, but for everyone who wants to be able to communicate freely within a democratic society.
With his remarks, he draws attention to the risk that far-reaching digital investigative powers may not be sufficiently restricted. His address does not indicate that he cites concrete cases of politically motivated digital police investigations. His warning is mainly directed at the legal safeguards that must prevent abuse.
Data of innocent citizens may also be investigated
Lalmahomed also points to the consequences digital police investigations can have for people who themselves are not suspected of anything. When, for example, a telephone, laptop or company server is examined, private conversations, photos and other personal data of third parties may also become visible.
According to him, it must therefore be clear which information investigative services may examine, how long data may be retained and what options citizens have to challenge unlawful actions.
Among other things, he asks the government whether citizens can be informed afterwards when their data have been collected during a criminal investigation. He also wants to know whether those involved can have unnecessarily retained personal data deleted.
“Legal protection must not exist only for people who have sufficient money to pay for legal assistance or who understand exactly what has technically happened to their data,” Lalmahomed states.
He emphasises that the rule of law must also protect citizens who do not sufficiently know their rights.
Special attention for young people
In his address, Lalmahomed also reflects on the position of minors. He points out that a large part of their social lives now takes place digitally. Phones contain not only personal information, but also conversations and images involving friends, classmates and family members.
When a young person is a suspect in a criminal investigation, this must not automatically mean that the personal data of dozens of others can be investigated without limitation, according to him.
The parliamentarian therefore asks which special legal safeguards apply when minors become directly or indirectly involved in digital investigations.
At the same time, he acknowledges that young people must be protected against cyberbullying, threats, digital fraud, extortion and the unauthorised distribution of personal images. Young people who themselves commit criminal offences must also be dealt with, according to him.
Clear limits and judicial oversight
Lalmahomed wants to know from the government under what circumstances prior judicial authorisation is required for digital police investigations. He also asks how it is monitored that investigative services remain within the limits of an authorisation granted.
He further advocates clear rules on the security, retention, destruction and reuse of digital data.
According to him, the reliability of digital evidence must also be guaranteed, and the defence must have the opportunity to verify this evidence.
He additionally proposes considering an evaluation of the new investigative powers after, for example, two years. De Nationale Assemblée (Suriname’s parliament) could then determine how often the powers have been used, which irregularities have been identified and whether legal protection functions sufficiently in practice.
No opposition to modernisation
Lalmahomed makes clear that his critical stance does not mean he opposes expanding or modernising investigative capabilities. He acknowledges that the government needs sufficient instruments to protect victims and combat crime effectively.
However, he believes security and privacy must not be placed in opposition to each other.
“Security and privacy are not opposites. A well-functioning rule of law protects citizens against crime as well as against unlawful government action,” Lalmahomed said.
He emphasises that he is prepared to cooperate on legislation that strengthens investigations, provided that the powers are clearly limited and citizens enjoy sufficient legal protection.
He concludes his address with the message: “A strong rule of law is not measured by the amount of power the government possesses, but by the way in which it uses and limits that power.”
