Herman Dulder, who expresses criticism on Facebook about political and social developments in Suriname, is asking President Jennifer Simons for protection. The reason is a visit by two men who, according to him, presented themselves as police officers.
Dulder describes the visit in a statement in which he expresses concerns about his safety and that of his family. According to him, the visitors had to inform him that he was required to report to the police at nine o’clock the following morning. He says he was unable to establish whether they were in fact police officers.
When he asked about the reason for the summons, he initially received no clear answer, he says. The men allegedly then contacted several inspectors by telephone. Only after repeated insistence was he reportedly told that police wanted to speak with him about statements made on Facebook.
According to Dulder, no written summons was handed over. It also remained unclear to him which specific statement had prompted the meeting.
Report by Minister Noersalim said to be the reason
The summons to Herman Dulder is said to be related to a report filed by Mike Noersalim, Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (LVV). Dulder is said to have accused the minister of theft and criminal conduct on Facebook. Noersalim is said to regard those statements as defamation and slander.
According to this additional information, the visit took place on Saturday, November 14, and Dulder was required to report to Geyersvlijt police station. He is said to have first demanded clarification before complying with the summons. This editorial team has not independently verified the report or its precise content. The allegations against the minister have likewise not been established.
Herman Dulder calls for investigation into visit
Herman Dulder calls on both President Jennifer Simons and the police chief to have the matter investigated. He wants to know who the visitors were, on whose instructions they acted, and why he was required to report to the police.
He views the visit as intimidation because of his critical contributions on social media. That is his interpretation of the events. The additional information regarding a possible report provides an explanation for the summons, but does not clarify how the visit took place.
The photographs provided, which Dulder himself showed, depict two men in civilian clothing next to a black-painted Toyota Hilux with dark-tinted windows. Neither man is wearing a police uniform in the image. No police markings are visible on the visible parts of the pick-up. The photo in itself provides no clarity about their identity or capacity.
Fear due to violence and an unknown car
Herman Dulder places the alarm within his family in the context of reports of serious violence in Suriname. He refers to footage of a fatal shooting that was circulated via Facebook. It is not clearly stated in his argument which case he means.
According to him, the fear triggered by such footage is compounded when a black car then stops outside the home and unknown men ask for him. He describes how a young family member was also badly startled. His objection therefore concerns not only the request to report, but also the uncertainty that the visit allegedly caused.
Dulder fears that the meeting could result in assault or detention. These are fears expressed by him; there is no confirmation that the visitors intended to use violence against him. His report of threats via the internet has also not been separately substantiated.
Questions about police procedure
According to Dulder, a written summons should have made clear who wanted to speak with him and why. He mentions a signature, a station stamp and the name of the inspector. Their absence strengthened his distrust, he says. This is his description of the procedure he expected, not a finding that every verbal police summons is unlawful.
Despite the additional information about a possible report, information needed to assess the conduct remains unavailable, including the identity of the visitors and the capacity in which Dulder was to be questioned. His statement does not make clear whether it concerned an invitation for a meeting, questioning as a suspect, or another action.
Dulder describes himself as a retired citizen who held a managerial position for many years. He says he has no weapons and operates alone. With that explanation, he stresses that he sees his activities on Facebook as expressing criticism and engaging in discussion.
Criticism on Facebook and freedom of expression
Herman Dulder says he uses his Facebook account to spark social debate. He regards his contributions as participation in public debate and believes that citizens must be able to speak critically about developments in Suriname.
According to him, it is not currently his intention to organise people politically. However, he calls on others to share his message and stand up for fundamental rights and freedoms, regardless of political differences.
Dulder says he is open to complaints from people who believe he has crossed the line with his statements. Such complaints should, according to him, be handled through the applicable procedures. He wants clarity about precisely what he is accused of.
Freedom of expression was previously the subject of parliamentary discussion. In January 2026, Key News reported on a private member’s bill to abolish the so-called gag provisions. The initiators sought to better safeguard freedom of expression through it. That earlier discussion in itself provides no clarity about the reason for or legal background to the visit described by Dulder.
Comparison with the military period
Herman Dulder draws a comparison in his argument with the military dictatorship of the 1980s. He warns of a situation in which those in power would act against critical citizens outside clear procedures. That comparison expresses his political assessment and fear; it does not prove that the visit described was part of such an approach.
He says he hopes that the president is not behind the action and suspects the involvement of people below her. He presents no verifiable evidence for that assumption in the available material. His call to Simons is precisely to intervene and ensure the safety of him and his family.
Response to request for protection unknown
Dulder says he is prepared to mobilise society if he is detained. In his statement, he also mentions a possible hunger strike to draw attention to his situation.
No official response to Dulder’s concerns about his safety and the manner of the summons is available. Whether his request for an investigation will be taken up and when he will report to police remains unclear for now.
