‘National Security' co-starring Charrandass Persaud

‘National Security’ co-starring Charrandass Persaud

Feb 13, 2019 Freddie Kissoon

Could we liken the plot of the comedy film, National Security, with the national security scenario playing out with Charrandass Persaud? There are elements of similarity. In the hit movie with popular comedian, Martin Lawrence, two investigators on a mission to solve a crime, bungle it with outlandish mistakes.
I cannot put Charran as the star. If I do that then the resemblance fades away. Who is the lead actor in the Guyanese version of the film I don’t know. People may want to assign the Police Commissioner, because he announced that the investigation involves national security. Some may say, Khemraj Ramjattan. He informed the nation that he contacted the police after he learnt that Charran had made inquiries about buying gold.
It is surprising that no journalist has taken up the issue with Ramjattan. I know a minister who bought a car for someone last year. I know another minister who bought a motorcycle for someone in Berbice recently. Can those two cases be reported to the police? If a judge inquires about a vehicle from a dealer and we hear about it, should it raise suspicion? My answer is no. But Ramjattan holds the security portfolio, so he may think otherwise.
Charran is making a lot of videos, and in one of them he asked what was wrong about inquiring about the purchase of gold? Maybe Ramjattan should answer the question. But let us return to the statement by the Police Commissioner, of national security. The surface material Guyanese have been given, especially by Moses Nagamootoo (Nagamootoo wrote in November last year that they were planning to pick his bones in Whim, well I heard they have started; more on that in a forthcoming column) is that Charran took a bribe to vote yes.
If proven true, would that not be corruption and the charges would be along that line? How does national security come in? Two former presidents are in jail (South Korea and Brazil) and a serving US governor was jailed for taking money for selecting the appointee that would fill Barack Obama’s Illinois senate seat. In all three cases, there were corruption indictments, but nothing said about national security.
In Guyana, there is talk that Charran received money to vote the way he did. From my layman’s perspective, if there is proof of that, then the MP is guilty of a corrupt transaction. If there are national security issues involved, then there is more to the Charrandass Persaud controversy than the surface material that the Guyanese people are familiar with.
Governments do not discuss national security matters in public, because they say they are sensitive material. Therefore, I don’t think the Guyanese public will be given more information of this dimension of the Charrandass imbroglio. But I think most Guyanese felt that if Charran took money then it is a case of corruption. The national security statement means there is something beneath the surface material.
Of course, I am entitled to my opinion. Of course, it is my right to say if I believe the Commissioner of Police. I will not pen words to the effects that the Commissioner is wrong, but I will state my opinion. I do not believe national security is involved. There may be. But I do not believe it at the time of writing. I will change my position when the Guyanese people are given the evidence through the action of the police.
For the rest of this column, I want to look at the corruption thing through the eyes of a layman, since I am not a police officer nor a lawyer. But I would venture to say that an educated mind does not have to be a security expert or an attorney to understand how police investigations should proceed.
Either one of four situations have to be present to determine if Charran received money. One is that Charran has to admit it and accept the consequences. Secondly, the payer has to admit that he gave Charran an inducement for his vote. This here is not an easy matter to succeed in court. Charran could say he did not receive any money from any payer and that the man is lying. Unless you can confront Charran with the evidence over and above what the payer said, then there is the word of the payer versus Charran’s.
The third pathway is a paper trail that reveals that gold or cash moved from hand to hand to hand and ended up in Charran’s pocket and all the players have left documentary evidence. Finally, there is the route of circumstantial evidence. So far, nothing on the state of the investigation.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News