Nigel Hughes’s sanctimonious and obfuscating response to Randy Persaud

Dear Editor,
Last week, an AFC-sympathizer friend forwarded to me a copy of Nigel Hughes’s Facebook post, titled “Response to Dr. Randy Persaud’s Letter “Questions for Nigel Hughes”, and asked for my comments on what Hughes wrote.
In his letter, Persaud listed 15 questions, most of which probed Hughes’s willingness and/or readiness to apologize for what can be described as APNU-AFC’s [jointly], and AFC’s [solely] political shenanigans that negatively impacted citizens, the country, or both.
Adhering to my friend’s specific request for comments on Hughes’s response to Persaud, here is the one-sentence summation I sent him: “Hughes’ sanctimonious and obfuscating response to Randy Persaud’s call for his apologies reads like an oratorial courtroom drama skillfully crafted to mesmerize the jury of Guyanese into rendering an acquittal of APNU-AFC for their shenanigans that negatively impacted the country.”
Upon receiving my statement, my friend contacted me to probe my response. Going through my summation in parts, I explained that my use of the words “sanctimonious”, which means “acting or speaking as if morally better than others”, and “obfuscating”, which means “to make something less clear or confusing”, were arrived at from an examination of how Hughes responded to Randy Persaud’s call for his apology. Focusing on how and what Hughes presented in his response, I guided my friend to some of Hughes’s exact statements that readily suggested sanctimoniousness, followed by questions to denote his obfuscation. Here are the direct quotes, followed by questions they raised.
Hughes: “The delays following the No-Confidence Motion were subject to significant legal and procedural interpretation.”
Without addressing why the No-Confidence Motion was challenged, Hughes proceeded to state, “Moving forward, my commitment is to strengthen our democratic institutions to avoid such uncertainties… to ensure there can be no ambiguity when election results are announced.”
Questions: What uncertainties? What ambiguity? Didn’t Burnham claim no ambiguity in his “rigged” election results?
Hughes: “My administration would ensure greater transparency in contracts, negotiating where necessary to protect the national interest.”
Questions: Does Hughes have a transparent contract as a legal counsel for ExxonMobil? How transparent was the contract negotiated between the APNU-AFC government and ExxonMobil?
Hughes: “I remain committed to upholding the highest standards of accountability in all aspects of public service…”
Question: Has Hughes, as part of APNU-AFC, held these political bodies accountable while its members shared in the governance of the country?
Hughes: “As President, I would revisit these policies to ensure they prioritize relief for the vulnerable populations…”
Question: Hasn’t the current Government granted increases in wages/salaries, pensions, housing assistance, free education, and plans to distribute $100,000 to eligible citizens in efforts to bring about economic relief among the vulnerable populations?
Hughes: “As President, I will ensure that sacrifices of our uniformed forces are acknowledged with meaningful support and salaries…”
Questions: Has the current Government failed to support the armed forces, or underpaid them? If it has, why the failure to identify areas that lack meaningful support?
Hughes: “I intend to focus on strengthening the institutions that support… bridging the gap between our divisive elements.”
Question: Isn’t that exactly what President Irfaan is doing? Hasn’t the PPP/C government improved the following institutions: Health: – in the form of new and modernized hospitals, clinics, and improvements in health care; Education: – new schools, free university education, and increasing the number of trained teachers; Economics: – employment opportunities and increased wages and salaries; Family: – in the form of housing, retirement benefits, cash grants; Civic: -recreational centres and sports’ facilities?
From the foregoing statements and questions raised, readers can judge for themselves whether they represent sanctimoniousness and obfuscation. In so doing, the reader may find it worthy to note Hughes’s use of the pronouns “My” and/or “I” in every one of the quoted statements.
Having discussed the Hughes’s statements (i)-(vi), I then focused on the phrase “oratorial courtroom drama purposefully crafted to mesmerize the jury of Guyanese…” I noted that while Randy Persaud called on Hughes for apologies regarding APNU-AFC’s or AFC’s political shenanigans that negatively impacted the country, Hughes instead, – in “courtroom drama” style – turned to cursory references of ‘legalities, litigation, court rulings, and constitutionality,’ followed by remarks on what “his administration,” or “his presidency” would do for the country – all of which suggest efforts to mesmerize the reader – i.e., “the act of holding someone’s attention completely that they cannot think of anything else.”
For example, Hughes’s explanation on his reference to the simple math that 33 does not equate to a majority over 32 is in itself mesmerizing, for he declared: “The issue of 33 vs 32 was first raised by President Donald Ramotar when he solicited and received an opinion from Senior Counsel indicating that 33 was not the majority…my repetition of it was merely the repetition of an earlier opinion from President Ramotar’s presidential records”.
This response seems both obfuscating and mesmerizing at the same time. One wonders what Hughes is really trying to say, and what were his views on the issue at the time?
Explaining my use of the phrase “rendering a not guilty plea,” I emphasized to my friend that by not acquiescing to Randy Persaud’s call for his apology, Hughes cannot be held liable for anything – which is tantamount to “rendering an acquittal of APNU-AFC for their shenanigans that negatively impacted the country.”

Regards,
Narayan Persaud, PhD