Dear Editor,
I WRITE in response to issues raised in the Freddie Kissoon Column (KN Friday, July 26, 2019) captioned, “Some questions about who is taking bribes”.
From reading Kissoon‘s column, it is clear that he is on a mission to sanitise the “treacherous” action of Charrandass Persaud. I will contend that that mission is a futile one. The former AFC member and APNU+AFC parliamentarian voted with the PPPC on the no-confidence motion that brought down the government.

It is also obvious that Kissoon’s utterances are not the result of the pursuit of objective analysis. Instead, they are influenced by his long and close friendship with Charrandass; and that relationship is driving his crusade. While giving support to Charrandass, he is, at the same time, using his column to incite his friend and comrade to file lawsuits against Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo and Barrington Braithwaite. In doing so, Kissoon demonstrates consistency in showing little or no regard for contradicting his own publicly-stated principle, which decries politicians and public officials who resort to lawsuits when their actions invite public scrutiny.

Like Kissoon, I don’t have the evidence to substantiate claims that Charrandass took a bribe for his vote. In spite of that fact, I refuse to conclude that he did not. And I expressed this opinion, knowing that in law, there is a convention that one is innocent until proven guilty. I am also aware of the inherent difficulties in the application of this principle, given its evidence-based logic. While this approach is generally accepted as best practice, we do so conscious that one can be exonerated by a court of law, but is still guilty of the crime. So the fact that the evidence of Charrandass taking a bribe for his vote is not revealed does not mean that the evidence doesn’t exist, and that he is not guilty as charged in the court of public opinion of major sections of the society.

I have in the past, and will continue, to publicly defend the right of any politician or political activist to break ranks with their party or government when done in a manner that enhances the political culture. Charrandass’s treacherous action has a negative impact on the political culture, and worsens the political/racial divide in the country. I am not convinced that his action was for noble reasons.

My understanding of politics is that it is public business, and the electorate is the final arbitrator on the actions of political actors. And politicians, more so those in parliament, are accountable to the Guyanese people. Therefore, people have the right to know their representative’s position on issues of national importance. Since the Charrandass controversy arose, I am yet to find in the public record anything written or spoken by this gentleman expressing any grievance with the ‘Coalition’ or the government. If Freddie has knowledge of these sources, he should reveal them. I am open to being informed by this new knowledge.

Charrandass’ parliamentary record before the no-confidence motion demonstrates that he was a loyal APNU+AFC MP. His speech on the 2019 Budget was consistent with his history of loyalty. He supported and praised the administration by defending its policies and programmes. Notably, he hailed the government’s achievements in Berbice, noting what it has done for the people in that part of the country, to the applause of his fellow APANU+AFC colleagues in parliament as well as under the watchful eyes of his “handlers” on the opposite side of the House.

A few weeks later, on the occasion of the no-confidence motion, he stabbed his colleagues “in the back” by supporting the PPP/C, to the dismay of his colleagues who, in agony, shouted, “No Charrandass!” Thereafter, we saw an about-turn in his rhetoric, demonising the government, accusing it of every conceivable crime under the sun, including destroying Berbice and sugar workers. How pathetic!

If Kissoon wants to be taken seriously, he cannot ignore these facts, more so since he indulges in proclaiming his objectivity. It is remiss of him not to write a column that compares and analyses Charrandass Persaud’s budget speech against his rhetoric after the no-confidence vote. Until Freddie does so, his credibility in relation to this controversy will continue to be on the line.

I prefer not to cite foreign examples in domestic polemics, but sometimes doing so can prove to be more effective. Most Guyanese have some awareness of the “Brexit crisis” in Britain, with MPs on both side of the House, government and opposition, publicly taking an independent position, separating themselves from their respective parties. And in Parliament, they vote as they see fit. This political controversy is currently in the public domain. If Charrandass acted as the British MPs (or had put in the public record one serious disagreement with the government prior to his action), I would have defended his right to vote as he did, while disagreeing with his judgement.

In closing, Charrandass’ treacherous action, voting with the PPPC to bring down the APNU+AFC government opened him justifiably to the accusations of taking a bribe and conspiring with the PPPC. Only the politically naive would rule out that in contemplating his action, the former MP did not consider the financial and material rewards inherent in his move, and sought to have such incentives adequately addressed by his handlers. Editor, Kissoon is well placed to inform the nation on the source or sources paying the bills for his “hero”, or whether Charrandass Persaud is financially endowed to do so himself.

Regards,
Tacuma Ogunseye.