SO Peter Ramsaroop, a very senior AFC chieftain, and one time presidential “wannabee” is now facing shocking and shamefully scandalous allegations of invasion of privacy, made by a former tenant of his Queenstown building. Certainly, his innocence or guilt will be determined by the relevant authorities. But there is a familiar refrain, being heard again, as in the salacious Sharma case: POLITICAL MOTIVATION. Now, this defence is poor, tasteless, unreasonable, and without fact: but not unusual, coming from one who has been known to pronounce from the moral high ground over the years. Let us have some objectivity here.
Which sane minded, decent and self- respecting young woman, as  I am sure Ms Ming  is, will want to make such serious, public allegations that involves her, knowing the intense public furore such will occasion? Not for a Hollywood film. Ms Ming, like any citizen, felt that her personal rights have been violated, and decided to lodge a report with the duly constituted authorities. That is her constitutional right to which she is entitled. To err is human, whether by default or otherwise; and if the goodly executive has indeed committed such a serious offence then he must suffer the consequences.  So all the defenders are trying to resurrect that good old song of political motivation as a reason for the law intervening. What about the rights of the victim in this instance? Who cares?  Where are the human rights representatives on this issue? Speaking of a convenient category of politicians! Hypocrites! They are worse than the biblical Pharisees!