APNU’s American based Afro-centric advocate Dr David Hinds reportedly said in Demerarawaves on 12-6-11 that “we are not going to take this lying down because this is a declaration of war on people who have a right to protest.” Dr Hinds previously said that “Granger has to be President of Guyana” even as the losing party got less votes and seats than the winning PPP/C. This demand for Mr. Granger to be Guyana’s President has absolutely no foundation in law or fairness. In fact according to GECOM Commissioner Dr Bud Mangal in SN 12-12-2011
Guyana’s 2011 national elections witnessed 166,340 registered electors voting for the governing PPP/C while 139,678 registered voters voted for the losing APNU (a whopping difference of 26,662 votes). The elections were certified as free and fair by international and Guyanese observers.
In an emotional outburst after Guyana’s police dispersed an illegal march in Georgetown on 12-6-2011 Dr Hinds failed to dispel doubts about APNU’s motives and proclivity for violence. He was unable to explain or justify the non-compliance with the required police permit. Why must anyone be exempt from equality in complying with Guyana’s laws?
Mr. Ogunseye, Dr Hinds and other extremists who peddle this fallacy of APNU winning the 2011 elections need to come home to reality. The opposition AFC fought the 2011 elections and rejected any coalition with APNU. APNU cannot now abrogate AFC’s seven seats to itself to make demands for “losers take all” bullying. AFC’s seats as theirs, and theirs alone, to vote as they see fit, not APNU’s birthright. The reality is that the AFC has publicly rejected APNU and eschewed any race baiting unlike that followed by APNU.
Historically most PNC street demonstrations have resulted in violence, burning of buildings and attacks on Indians in the past. In all APNU’s rallies there was absolutely zero Indian attendance compared to the multi racial turnout at PPP/C and AFC meetings and in their leadership and membership.
What has become obvious is that APNU’s Mr. Granger has completely lost control of his extremists who have hijacked it from his leadership. Not a good recommendation for a former military boss with a background steeped in discipline.
Remember Dr Hinds demanded that:”Granger must be President”  With APNU losing the 2011 elections it would mean that the “loser now want all! In other words while the PPP/C had been accused of “winner take all” now the “losers want all” or their half to go, with its usual raping of Indian women, looting, arson, violence and bloodshed.
What is even more befuddling is Mr. Ogunseye sanctimoniously presuming to interpret and explain the motives” both from the standpoint of the low turnout and the way they voted (how) many of our Indian brothers and sisters demonstrated their refusal to continue to be prisoners of the PPP/C’s racist propaganda which conveyed the specter of an African take over if the opposition wins the elections” Take a reality check Mr. Ogunseye. What many Indians indicated (amongst other things) is a rejection and displeasure of the PPP/C’s neglect of their needs, fears and some PPP/C’s leaders’ ostentatious and extravagant lifestyles. Most importantly their voting and apathy reflects their racial insecurity and abhorrence to crime and drugs.
None can forget that ‘their” PPP/C threatened to derecognise their sugar union GAWU and to terminate and subjugate their health care benefits to the Health Ministry while closing Diamond sugar estate and terminating so many sugar workers jobs. 
The PPP/C’s failure to racially balance the armed forces despite its promises will always be the albatross around their necks. Up to now they have not been able to provide solutions to pressing problems despite being elected to do so. When will our electricity dilemma be resolved?
What has significantly changed among APNU’s leadership and core supporters in their use of violence that matches Mr. Ogunseye’s perception of a changed Indian voting behaviour? Absolutely nothing, this can never be the basis of shared anything until and unless PNC/APNU absolutely renounces violence as a tool for seeking and keeping power. Look at the top heavy military armada lined up in APNU with three former military chiefs. Who it is aimed at is not doubtful.
When will Guyanese see a cessation of such demands that for example 32 seats equals 26 seats entitling them to political power, right after an internationally certified free and fair elections? 
While Mr. Ogunseye in a democracy has freedom to his opinions, his graduation as an  “Indian expert” is yet to comprehend Indian raison d’etre for cultural and ethnic survival, freedom and resistance for any guilt for others’ problems in a predominantly Caribbean black sea.
For example Mr. Ogunseye seeks to hide a devious agenda in resorting to violence by claiming   
“on the other hand, those who voted for the AFC and APNU did so to bring about electoral defeat of the ruling party. The elections were seen by these voters as an opportunity to change the political equation through the ballot box.” Amazing! But which is the truth? Indians could not have voted to approve or change the government democratically and simultaneously empower or endorse APNU’s courtship of bullets, street demonstrations and violence which inevitably targets them. Unless APNU’s Mr. Granger publicly (or secretly) endorsed a hidden policy that unless they win the 2011 elections they will resort to violence in conformity with an established military strategy acumen?
Obviously the change that most Guyanese prefer is seen by their rejection of APNU by voting for both the PPP/C’s and the AFC’s multi-racial harmony. Losing an election cannot validate bullying and violence for shared government in a multiracial Guyana.