We can’t say we’re surprised by the recent action of Mr Desi Bouterse, the president of Suriname, to block the resumption of the December Murders trial.

After all, Mr Bouterse is known for flexing his muscle, as he came to international prominence in February 1980 when he and his colleagues staged a military coup to overthrow the Government of Suriname.

For the benefit of those who missed it, the December Murders refers to the arrests and killings in December 1982 of 15 young, prominent Surinamese who were regarded as opponents of Mr Bouterse’s illegitimate regime.

These young Surinamese were taken to Fort Zeelandia — at the time the headquarters of Mr Bouterse and his soldiers — where they were allegedly tortured and killed.

The murders, we recall, triggered international outrage and resulted in the Dutch Government freezing development aid to Suriname.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee judged that the 15 victims were “arbitrarily deprived of their lives contrary to article 6 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” and appealed to Suriname to investigate the killings and prosecute the people found responsible.

In 2007, Mr Bouterse, who had long maintained his innocence in the murders, accepted political responsibility for them, but denied direct involvement.

Following Mr Bouterse’s return to power in 2010, this time by legitimate means, the Surinamese congress passed an amnesty law in 2012 that effectively shut down the December Murders trial that began in 2007.

But late last year, the High Court ruled that the trial must resume. In response, Mr Bouterse claimed that the ruling was orchestrated by “external forces” and said that it had created a “constitutional crisis” which had placed the security of the State in peril.

Late last month, he announced in an address to the National Assembly that his Government was invoking article 148 of the

constitution that states that “Government decides the general prosecution policy” and that “in the interest of matters of State security Government may give the attorney general instructions regarding prosecution”.

Essentially, therefore, what he did was instruct the public prosecutor to stop the trial of all the suspects, including himself.

We are told that this was the first time that this article was being used, and legal scholars had hinted that Mr Bouterse might use some obscure loophole in the constitution to end the trial.

Given Mr Bouterse history, we are, as we said, not surprised by his actions.

However, we are unable to fathom why Caribbean Community heads of government, at their 37th summit held in Guyana July 4-6, sat with Mr Bouterse and accepted his briefing on the developments in Suriname, apparently without putting some hard questions to him.

According to the communiqué from the summit, the heads of government “noted the information provided by the president of Suriname and expressed their view that the matter was an internal one”.

Amazing!

We wonder how many of those Caricom heads, who have demonstrated respect for democracy and the rule of law, slept comfortably after that session with Mr Bouterse?