DJ R.S. released by Suriname Court of Justice: insufficient evidence for human trafficking
The Court of Justice in Suriname ordered the immediate release of DJ R.S., who was arrested on 16 September on suspicion of human trafficking and assault.
Court orders release of DJ following objection to provisional detention
The Court of Justice in Suriname has ordered the immediate release of DJ R.S., who was arrested on 16 September 2026 on suspicion of human trafficking and assault. This was reported by Waterkant. The defence had filed an objection against further deprivation of liberty, after the examining magistrate had upheld the detention three days after the arrest.
His lawyer, Ms Maureen C.M. Nibte, filed a request on the basis of Article 54c of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She argued that there were insufficient concrete indications that her client was involved in organising or facilitating human trafficking, and requested his immediate release.
Financial assistance, not organised trafficking
According to the defence, S. denies any involvement in transporting the woman who is referred to as the victim in the case. The woman is a relative of his wife and was staying in Venezuela, where she had family problems and received financial assistance from S.'s wife.
The defence acknowledges that S. made an amount of 3,000 US dollars available to his wife. However, his lawyer emphasises that his role ended there: S. did not organise the journey, had no contact with the woman before her arrival, and did not bring her to Suriname.
Nibte also points to the statement of the woman herself. She reportedly stated that she did not meet S. until after she had already arrived in Suriname. According to the lawyer, financial assistance alone cannot simply be classified as human trafficking.
Family and business as additional arguments
The defence further argued that both S. and his wife are currently in detention, whilst the couple has two young children aged ten months and seven years respectively. The children are being looked after by a brother of S., but according to the defence counsel, this temporary arrangement is no longer sustainable.
It was also emphasised that S. is an entrepreneur and employer. His arrest therefore has consequences not only for his family, but also for employees who depend on his business for their income.
Nibte stressed that the defence does not belittle the seriousness of the suspicion, but argued that the available facts are currently insufficient to justify further detention. The Court was asked to overturn the previous decision and declare the extension of the remand in custody unlawful.
The Court agreed with the request. S. was immediately released. His wife remains in detention for the time being.
Source: Waterkant