Dear Editor
I WAS following and continue to follow the different lesions of Charrandass Persaud ‘or’ The Charrandass Persaud scenario. I have seen the different quotations and the various legal chapters being written for and against the ‘Charrandass up session’. I am not legally qualified to indulge in the legalities that are penned on a daily basis by various letter writers.

I have decided here and now to give my version of ‘that affair’ unapologetically to anyone. This is how I see it and this is how citizens see it.

Charrandass went into Parliament on an AFC ticket. He was elected to Parliament as a representative of the voters who supported the AFC on Election Day in May 2015.

Charrandass Persaud did not enter Parliament as an individual, so when he said ‘yes’ and posited that it was his conscience speaking, he was violating the wishes of the electors who voted for the AFC. He was circumventing (legal term) the AFC voters who did not give him the authority to vote the way he did. Again I repeat, as a representative of ‘people’, Charrandass’ personal feelings were not supposed to be ‘the issue’. I am not writing here as a representative of the coalition government, but as a veteran political activist who has been in the struggle for over 65 years.

I have seen most of it from the age of 15 years. I am not one speaking or writing as a member or supporter of a political party, but as a ‘street soldier’ and former bodyguard of Founder Leader, Peter Stanislaus D’Aguiar. One of the things we were taught in the ‘V-7’ was to tell it as it is, without any fear or favour. What have been outlined here could be co-capitalised by the people that counts most – the man and woman in the streets. Your biased letter writers should not try to bluff the readers with your fancy and far away terms.

Speak to our population in their language and do not try to throw them in ‘sawllawallah’. Had I been a lawyer, I would have entered pro bono for any AFC voter who wanted to take the legal course I have outlined. Let me remind the coalition ministers and their members in Parliament that there is a saying that goes like this, “when lil boy say he gon pelt you, he already got a brick in he hand.” What does this mean, simply that when the PPP took the no-confidence vote to Parliament they already knew they had a coalition MP or maybe MPs to say yes, yes. How do we know that Charrandass was the only to ‘switch’.
Regards
M. Williams