I refer to the column “Anti-government people: Daily loss of credibility” by Mr. Freddie Kissoon, published in the Guyana Chronicle on February 5, 2026, in which my name and public positions were directly referenced following my appearance on the Freddie Kissoon Show.
Let me state at the outset that I did appear on Mr. Kissoon’s programme and offered my views on the 2026 National Budget and on governance issues affecting Guyana. Those views were sincerely held, grounded in my experience in public life, and expressed without rancour or personal malice. However, the characterisation of my appearance as a “loss of credibility” is not only inaccurate but reflects a deeper problem in how political disagreement is increasingly framed in our public discourse.
Mr. Kissoon has no authority—moral, intellectual, or otherwise—to determine whether I, or anyone else, has “lost credibility” simply because our perspectives diverge from his own or from the agenda of the governing People’s Progressive Party (PPP). Credibility in a democratic society is not conferred or withdrawn by columnists; it is assessed by the public over time, based on consistency, integrity, and openness to scrutiny.
It is also important to address the recurring issue of election rigging. If Mr. Kissoon, or anyone else, possesses credible evidence of electoral fraud—whether in 2020 or any other election—the appropriate forum for such claims is the court of law, not a newspaper column or television programme.
Guyana is a constitutional democracy with established judicial mechanisms. Allegations of that gravity must be tested by evidence and due process, not by innuendo or rhetorical flourish.
What is particularly striking is the selective amnesia displayed in the column. For more than fifteen years, Mr. Kissoon was among the most persistent and uncompromising critics of the PPP, its leadership, and its governance record. That history is well documented and widely known. Today, however, he appears to sing a markedly different tune, one that is far more accommodating of the very political establishment he once castigated. He is entitled to evolve in his views—as we all are—but such evolution does not entitle him to disparage others who remain critical of the government of the day.
On the specific matter raised during the programme regarding the 2020 elections, my position has been consistent: allegations must be supported by evidence and adjudicated by the courts. To suggest that expressing uncertainty or refusing to parrot a predetermined narrative equates to dishonesty or intellectual deficiency is both unfair and intellectually unserious.
Finally, let me be clear: Freddie Kissoon remains a friend of mine. Friendship, however, does not require political conformity. We hold different views on Guyana’s development trajectory and on the performance of the current administration, and that is entirely legitimate in a plural democracy. Healthy societies are built not on enforced consensus, but on respectful disagreement.
I remain committed to open debate, democratic principles, and the right of every Guyanese to question those in power—without being labelled, caricatured, or dismissed for doing so.
