The attack on Darren Wade

Oct 15, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

I saw a post from Dr. Terrence Campbell, APNU, incoming Member of Parliament and my first response to him is he needs to educate himself on the role of a practicing attorney in any society.  Mr. Darren Wade is a practicing attorney and the residents of this nation will expect no less than the following from him: He will defend clients who are accused to ensure that the legal system is working; he will defend the accused since anyone accused has a right to a fair process and he will be a party to a process that allows for a fair conviction after rigorous legal process which as a collective contributes to the entire legal system being stronger.

In many jurisdictions, lawyers like Mr. Darren Wade, operate under a “cab rank” rule—they must take the case that comes to them, just as a taxi must pick up the next passenger. This prevents “convenience lawyering,” where only the popular or obviously innocent get a defense, and ensures that every person, no matter how heinous their alleged crime, has access to legal representation. So, can Dr. Campbell spare us the intellectual dishonesty?  Please!

Dr. Campbell’s post on Facebook of October 12, 2025, exposes his own intellectual bankruptcy and the poverty of his argument. Instead of engaging with the substance of the Comrade’s critique—a critique you admit was public, early, and prescient, you have resorted to the cheapest and most cowardly tactic in politics: attacking the messenger because you cannot rebut the message. Let’s dismantle this pathetic excuse for an argument made by Dr. Campbell.

You commit a classic ad hominem circumstantial fallacy; you believe that revealing a legal relationship between an attorney and his client, which he has every right to represent, automatically invalidates every single word the Comrade Darren Wade said? By this infantile logic, no attorney who earns a paycheck from any entity can ever have a valid, principled opinion about them. Mr. Nigel Hughes represented Mr. Nigel Dharamlal on some very serious rape allegations, so that made Mr. Nigel Hughes into a PPP stooge?

This, is not how adults debate. The truth or falsehoods of the Comrade’s warnings about the failure of negotiations, the dire consequences for the party stand entirely separate from their source of income. You offered no counter-argument to their points because you have none Dr. Campbell; so, you revert to mud.

Dr. Campbell writes “Imagine my shock”. The only shocking thing here is your feigned naivete. In the real world, people have jobs. Party members, analysts, and commentators often have professional affiliations. You discovered a legal relationship and, like a child who has found a magician’s secret, you think you’ve uncovered a scandal. You haven’t. You’ve uncovered a reality of modern life, which you are now weaponizing to avoid a substantive discussion.

Dr. Campbell bemoans the “hundreds or thousands impacted by his/her comments without knowledge.” This is pure, unadulterated superciliousness. You think the public is a flock of simpletons, incapable of listening to an argument and judging its merits for themselves just because you say so? You believe they are mere puppets, whose opinions would be reversed if only they saw the puppet master’s strings. The public is smarter than you think. They can recognize a valid warning, and they can also recognise a cheap, deflective smear when they see one.  I have read Darren Wade’s comments of how he cleared this legal relationship with his political leader and got a “no objection” from his political leadership.  That reflects political class on the part of Mr. Darren Wade.

The central question remains:  Did you disprove Mr. Darren Wade’s claims about APNU’s failed negotiations? Did you provide a compelling reason why surrender to WIN was the wrong characterization? No. You dodged it all. Your entire post is a confession that you cannot win on the merits of the argument, so you must instead sling mud.

In conclusion, your attempt to paint this Mr. Darren Wade as a biased pawn is a transparent act of political sabotage against a credible critic and exposes that you lack political pedigree. It is the strategy of a weak actor that fears internal accountability. You are not defending APNU; you are making it a party that silences its best thinkers with cowardly attacks, and that is a far greater betrayal than any perceived paycheck from the WIN Team to their attorney, who happens to be a PNC Member.

Sincerely,

Khemraj Harryram

---

• APNU, Darren Wade, Letters, Terrence Campbell

---