Dear Editor,
I USUALLY don’t indulge myself in the political affairs of Guyana, but I felt compelled to do so, even from afar, since I think it would be an injustice if I didn’t voice my opinions.
I looked at the conduct of Charrandass Persaud and his actions both prior to and after the no-confidence vote. I have since found some striking legal points supported by precedents, which I think pose some serious questions as to the legality and validity of the vote.
There are valid grounds to take this matter in parliament and to seek a nullification of the vote.

Based on my take of the situation, there is no question that Charrandass’ behaviour not only compromised the integrity of parliament, but his actions can be considered as contemptuous and misleading to both the elected coalition government and the entire country.

It is clear that Charrandass sat in parliament under false pretence. The claim he made after the vote that he voted with his conscience, turned out to be a gross deception, or in other words, an assault on the truth.

It is clear that Charrandass knew all along the position he would take on the vote, yet in retrospect, just a few days prior to the vote, he was rigorously defending the budget and heaping praises on the accomplishments of the government, particularly in his region.  How hypocritical!!

Furthermore, his actions of leaving the country immediately after the vote was not a last-minute decision, but a well-executed plan. His own words indicted him for contacting the adviser of the opposition leader before the vote for security, and for alerting the Canadian mission that he would need help for his safe flight from Guyana.

Lawyers investigating criminal conduct look for motives such as the disposed assets, pre-arranged travel plans, collusion with post-crime facilitators, etc. The motivation clearly was not conscience, as he could have resigned in protest from his party and the government before the vote, or abstained from voting if his Whip had given him that option.

He claimed not to have been paid off. However, in the same breath, he said that he found nothing wrong if he were to take money. What a conscience!  He said that he has no money in his bank accounts. Now I hear him say, from his own mouth, that he was buying one million U.S. worth in gold for a client, and that doesn’t seem to be a problem? Is he a gold dealer, a gold exporter? Who is this rich client? Shouldn’t access to US$1 million raise the red flag of money laundering?

As you are aware, members voting against the party’s line in this type of situation is something you rarely see in other democracies. Charrandass presumptuously violated all ethical rules by ruling out the options of voicing his grievances ahead of time to the coalition, or even doing the proper thing and resigning. His secret agenda deprived his party of the opportunity of withdrawing his membership prior to the vote.

In light of the above, I hope the coalition government will exercise all their options in challenging the vote in parliament as a breach of privilege prior to calling an election. Charrandass has been recalled and removed from parliament. He cannot be allowed to leave his dirty vote behind. His invalid vote should follow him!

Regards
Richard Richie