Wendy Jap-A-Joe cannot automatically return to her former position as deputy director after the expiry of her term of appointment as director of the Telecommunicatie Autoriteit Suriname (TAS). The Court of Justice also rejected this argument by Jap-A-Joe during the hearing of her appeal. This is evident from the explanation provided by press judge Ingrid Lachitjaran on Friday, October 30, 2026.
The position regarding her former role was one of the arguments Jap-A-Joe used to substantiate her legal status at TAS. She stated that she had already been employed as deputy director before her appointment as director and that, after the end of her five-year appointment, she could again claim that earlier position.
According to Lachitjaran, the Court did not follow this reasoning. Accepting a new position means, according to the judicial assessment, that the earlier position is terminated. Jap-A-Joe therefore cannot claim a return to that position solely on the basis of her former role as deputy director.
Term of appointment decisive for legal status
In assessing the appeal, the Court established that Jap-A-Joe was appointed director of TAS on October 20, 2021, for a period of five years. That term of appointment expired on October 19, 2026.
Under Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Wet Telecommunicatievoorzieningen, the director is appointed for a term of five years. The Court ruled that this statutory provision is decisive for the duration of the directorship.
Jap-A-Joe argued that her directorship could not end without a separate dismissal resolution by the president. The Court rejected this argument, because, according to the judicial assessment, the appointment ended by operation of law upon expiry of the statutory term.
Any dismissal resolution would, according to the press judge’s explanation, merely serve as written confirmation of a termination that already follows from the law.
Employment agreement provides no grounds to remain
An important part of the dispute concerns the employment agreement of November 1, 2021, which Jap-A-Joe entered into with TAS’s then president-commissioner.
The agreement contains provisions which, according to Jap-A-Joe, were intended to ensure continuity of management. On that basis, she argued that she was permitted to continue her duties as director as long as no other director had been appointed.
However, the Court ruled that these contractual provisions are at odds with the statutory term of appointment.
The formation of the agreement was also assessed. According to the press judge, the Court pointed out that, under the law, the director’s terms of employment must be determined by the responsible minister, after the Raad van Commissarissen (Supervisory Board) has been heard and approval from the Raad van Ministers (Council of Ministers) has been obtained.
According to the Court, it has not been shown that this statutory procedure was followed in relation to the agreement in question.
The cantonal court had previously decided to provisionally suspend the implementation of the employment agreement, insofar as it concerns the continuation of the directorship after the statutory term of appointment. The definitive legal validity of the agreement may still be decided in proceedings on the merits.
Raad van Commissarissen may act as management
The termination of the directorship also has consequences for the administrative powers within TAS.
Jap-A-Joe argued that the Raad van Commissarissen (RvC) could take over leadership only in the event of the director’s inability or absence. According to her, this was not the case, because she still considered herself director on the basis of her employment agreement.
The Court rejected this position.
Because the statutory term of appointment ended on October 19, 2026, the Court found that there was indeed an absence. In that case, the law provides for arrangements for the temporary acting management of the organisation.
As no deputy director had been designated to take over management, the Raad van Commissarissen was permitted, according to the judicial assessment, to assume the administrative responsibilities.
The Court thereby confirmed that the RvC is authorised to temporarily exercise leadership of TAS.
Handover could be prepared in advance
The Court also assessed the handover letter of October 16, 2026, in which the RvC requested Jap-A-Joe to transfer her duties and responsibilities on October 19.
Jap-A-Joe had objected to the fact that the handover was requested before the expiry of her term of appointment.
According to Lachitjaran, the Court did not find it unreasonable or improper for the RvC to send a letter in advance to arrange the handover at the end of the appointment period.
The Court ultimately rejected all objections raised by Jap-A-Joe and upheld the cantonal court’s earlier ruling.
This means that she may no longer perform any actions on behalf of TAS, may no longer enter the building, and that the imposed handover obligations remain in force.
Labour-law matter not yet definitively concluded
Although the Court has provided clarity on the terminated directorship, the ruling does not mean that all possible labour-law disputes between Jap-A-Joe and TAS have been definitively settled.
The legal validity of the employment agreement and any claims arising from it may still be assessed in separate proceedings on the merits.
The published cantonal court ruling of October 26, 2026 makes this distinction between the termination of the statutory appointment and the further assessment of the employment agreement.
The Court of Justice officially confirmed on Friday that the earlier ruling remains in force, with additional grounds. Jap-A-Joe must also pay SRD 18,000 in appeal costs.
