Former MP Charrandas Persaud has defended his decision to vote against the coalition government in Guyana of which he was part, causing the APNU+AFC administration to collapse.
In a video on Facebook uploaded on Christmas Day, Persaud said he was very unstable mentally in the administration.
“I took so much from the government that it almost drove me crazy,” the former PM, who is now in Canada, asserted.
He described himself as having been a ‘yes man’ and part of the ‘yes man team’ of the AFC, the minor party in the coalition.
Persaud said he had worked very hard to put the government in place by campaigning for the AFC (Alliance for Change), resulting in the coalition achieving a one seat majority in the national assembly.
He asked the youth what the coalition had done for them, declaring that he saw nothing even though he was sitting in parliament,
Persaud confirmed that he had received a letter expelling him from the house.
He described the expulsion as a blessing in itself as he was helpless and could do nothing for the people of Regions 5 &6 and Guyana generally.
“I realized that I had to do something to take this government out,” the former MP asserted.
He said all the time he had no say.
“In Guyana, and I am sure like most other countries, if you vote along party lines you’re good – you’re the guy they want. But you’re just a yes man. But if you vote according to your conscience, you’re only allowed one vote,” the former MP stated.
Persaud explained that he has a law practice to look after.
“I will make more money than they can give me in parliament for being the yes man, for being part of the yes man team,” he said.
On Friday night, Persaud shocked the nation when he joined with the opposition Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) to back a no confidence motion against the government.
Since the development, legal opinions have been offered as to the way forward and whether elections would be held within 90 days.
But the Guyana Bar Association was quoted by I News Guyana as saying that to suggest that the recently passed no-confidence motion, which was publicly accepted by the incumbent, was not validly passed, is erroneous.