Parmessar asks Public Prosecution Service to investigate arrival of Mennonites in Tibiti

Mennonites in Suriname have once again become the subject of political and legal debate, after Parmessar visited a location in the Tibiti area together with NDP parliamentarian Jennifer Vreedzaam and environmental activist Erlan Sleur. According to Parmessar, at least three Mennonite families are staying there. Homes, storage facilities and other amenities have been built on the site, and part of the forest has been cleared. Further work has reportedly been suspended for the time being. The discussion on Mennonites in Suriname is therefore increasingly centred on the question of what agreements were actually made.

During the visit, the visitors spoke with residents about the circumstances under which they came to Suriname. According to Parmessar, one of the families said it had moved from Belize expecting to be able to use 20 hectares of agricultural land per family. Those involved reportedly sold their possessions in Belize and brought agricultural machinery with them to build a new life in agriculture in Suriname.

Parmessar says the families later reportedly learned that payment is required for the land and that expansion is not automatically possible. He states that they were insufficiently informed about their legal position and the conditions applicable in Suriname. On that basis, he speaks of possible deception. This is Parmessar’s characterisation and not a finding by an investigative agency or court.

Mennonites in Suriname and possible deception

The NDP parliamentary group leader wants the Openbaar Ministerie to assess whether there are grounds for a criminal investigation. He mentions the possibility of human trafficking. Whether the circumstances legally fall under human trafficking has not been established and will have to be assessed by the competent authorities should an investigation be launched. Parmessar believes that particular attention should be paid to who approached the families, what assurances were made and what documents were used.

The call comes amid longstanding uncertainty over the legal basis for various projects involving Mennonites in Suriname. The government announced in August that residents at three locations in the interior had been ordered by bailiff’s writ on July 20, 2026, to cease activities and leave. According to the Ministry of Grondbeleid en Bosbeheer (Land Policy and Forest Management), the required permits were lacking for those settlements and certain activities. The official announcement made clear that further measures were not ruled out.

Government had previously ordered departure

Key News previously reported that the locations include Bantipasi, Albergapasi and Masoniakreek. Minister Stanley Soeropawiro of Grondbeleid en Bosbeheer said at the time that the government would take further measures if the order was not complied with. The government links the issue to broader spatial planning of the interior, monitoring of land use and protection of forest areas. The discussion on Mennonites in Suriname has thus become part of a broader debate on the development of the interior.

Opposing that view is the position of Braganza Marketing Group. The company has previously stated that the Mennonites participating in its agricultural projects are legally residing in Suriname and that the projects stem from agreements made with the government. Braganza also stated that use rights exist for projects in Tibiti and Kabalebo covering a total of 34,185 hectares. Those claims are the subject of discussion with the current government and are not the same as unconditional permission for all activities.

First, it must be clear what agreements were made and what rights were actually granted.

Uncertainty over agreements and permits

Minister Mike Noersalim of Landbouw, Veeteelt en Visserij (Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries) stated in early September that his ministry had not found a separate agreement with the Mennonites. According to him, there are documents and decisions from the previous government period concerning agricultural projects. He stressed that large-scale agriculture requires environmental studies and approvals, foreign workers must reside legally in Suriname, and activities in primary forest may not take place without the required procedures. Other agencies are also involved in monitoring forest use and environmental conditions.

The current discussion builds on a case that has been ongoing for several years. In January 2024, the then government stated that no land had been issued to Mennonites and that no land in Tibiti had been allocated to the group either. In 2026, however, new agricultural plans and agreements involving Braganza came more prominently into view. As a result, the debate on Mennonites in Suriname now concerns not only immigration, but also the question of which rights were actually granted, by which authority and under what conditions.

Questions also over logging in Tibiti

During the recent visit to Tibiti, felled trees and logs were also found, according to Parmessar. He says the Stichting voor Bosbeheer en Bostoezicht (Foundation for Forest Management and Forest Supervision) has been informed. The parliamentarian wants it established whether permits or other authorisations exist for the logging. As long as there is no formal finding on this, it cannot be concluded that the logging found was illegal. Inspections by the competent authorities must clarify what is and is not permitted.

Parmessar also warns of a possible further influx of Mennonites into Suriname. According to him, dozens to possibly hundreds of families abroad may be interested in coming to Suriname. He believes further settlement in forest areas should be prevented until the government has provided clarity on land use, immigration status, permits and the areas that can be made available for agriculture.

Coastal plain cited as possible alternative

For the families already present, he advocates a separate assessment. According to Parmessar, it should be considered whether they can remain under conditions or whether agricultural land on the coastal plain could be an alternative. The government has previously indicated that it prefers to concentrate large-scale agriculture in areas suitable for that purpose and that primary forest and the residential and living areas of Indigenous and tribal communities should be better protected. That policy directly affects the future of Mennonites in Suriname who have already made investments.

The matter therefore touches on several policy areas at once. It concerns the protection of forests, the legal status of foreign families, the powers of ministries, possible agreements with private companies and the question of how agricultural development can take place without undermining existing rules and rights. For Mennonites in Suriname themselves, it is particularly important that clarity be provided on which agreements are legally valid and which obligations arise from them.

Public Prosecution Service can provide clarity on criminal aspect

Parmessar calls the situation an example of broader problems with spatial planning and enforcement in the interior. His call on the Openbaar Ministerie adds a possible criminal dimension to this. For now, the suspicions he mentions are not established criminal offences. Further clarity will have to come from the government, supervisory authorities and possibly the Openbaar Ministerie if it decides to conduct an investigation.

Official government information confirms the order of July 20, 2026. LVV has additionally stated that it found no separate agreement with the Mennonites, but did find earlier documents and decisions concerning agricultural projects. Braganza has publicly presented a different account of the legal basis for the projects.