Political harassment, intimidation narrative (Part 1)

Dear Editor,
This is Guyana today: sugar workers and their families continue their descent into poverty; rice farmers and cash crop farmers are at risk of losing their land because of unaffordable new lease and D&I rates; overtaxed working class Guyanese are faced with dispossession as various Government agencies move against them; bauxite workers employed by RUSAL face an uncertain and precarious future; business is under severe strain; the sustained decline of the economy continues unabated; corruption is rampant, and fear stalks the land; a milieu of despair and hopelessness spreads across the country.
This is the Guyana in which APNU/AFC are drowning in the misery they have created.
APNU/AFC are desperate to change this desperate narrative. But instead of trying to bring solutions and effect a transformation of the narrative, APNU/AFC are trying to substitute the narrative with unfortunate drama. The truth, however, is that they can huff and puff all they want, the people of Guyana know their tricks, and are angry.
Their latest drama is to charge two former high-ranking professionals in the previous Government with misconduct in office, a charge that is not in the law books.
While the State media and others screamed out the headline of charges being laid against Ashni Singh and Winston Brassington, implying they stole billions of dollars, the truth is that the charges are a travesty, truly whimsical, vulgar, and epitomizes the vindictiveness of this Government. The Leader of the Opposition is right that the charges are frivolous.
The charges, in fact, expose the absolute absence of any regard for ethics, morality, and the law. This is pure and simple political harassment and intimidation. These men are two of Guyana’s public servants who have served with competency, commitment and dedication; qualities that many in APNU/AFC are totally lacking.
It is noteworthy that approval to sell these parcels of land was obtained from Cabinet, the highest decision-making body in the land. It is further noteworthy that these two men were part of a Board that included stakeholders from civil society, including the private sector.
When the Board finalised the sale, they obtained the permission of Cabinet. Why, then, did SOCU not charge everyone? Why just these two men?
By now, however, everyone realizes these are merely trumped up charges.

Sincerely,
Dr Leslie Ramsammy