Businessman Peter Ramsaroop was yesterday questioned by the police in relation to events leading up to the departure of former parliamentarian Charrandass Persaud from Guyana, one day after his critical vote against the government on a motion of no-confidence.
Ramsaroop yesterday told Stabroek News that he was contacted and asked to go to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Headquarters, Eve Leary, to answer questions in relation to Persaud and the events of December 21st.
He dubbed the investigation “political” based on the questions he was asked.
“What was fascinating and appalling and disgusting today is the political involvement in an investigation. I was asked questions, such as ‘What is my political affiliation?’ And ‘What do I do for any political party in Guyana?’ ‘Who is Peter Ramsaroop?’ And ‘Why is Peter Ramsaroop doing what he is doing today?’ Many questions in relation to the Ogle airport events. What I told them basically is that that is political harassment. No questioning should ever happen and my political affiliation has nothing to do with any investigation,” Ramsaroop said in a live video posted on the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) Facebook page last evening.
He said he spent eight hours at the CID Headquarters.
Ramsaroop said he was initially told by investigating ranks to leave but after two phone calls came from “higher ups,” he was further detained.
“The first set of ranks did an interview and told me I could leave. However before I walked out the door, two calls came down from ‘higher ups,’” he noted.
He added that throughout the day, “They were always telling you five minutes more, five more minutes. The Crime Chief walked by me five times, did not say a word. I basically said to him ‘This is political harassment. You can’t be having me sitting there in CID Headquarters, asking me about my political affiliation and especially for eight hours.’”
Ramsaroop added, “…This is not a distraction I am going to allow myself to be involved in. The fact is I am going to continue to tell the police I have nothing to say and they need to stop the political bullyism and the political system should get out of the police force.”
Since Persaud voted in favour of the opposition-sponsored motion against the government, essentially triggering its collapse, he has come under attack from APNU+AFC MPs, officials of the administration and others.
The motion was debated on December 21st and passed 33 to 32 after Persaud voted with the opposition.
Persaud, who said he voted according to his conscience, has denied being bribed for his vote.
He left for Canada the day after the vote.
Ramsaroop had previously explained to the media that Persaud had asked him for security assistance on the day of the vote in Parliament and he provided such.
He also accompanied Persaud to the Eugene F. Correia International Airport, at Ogle, from where Persaud departed the country. Ramsaroop’s access to the airport had been the subject of investigation.
Attorney Sase Gunraj, who is a part of a team of lawyers representing Ramsaroop, told this newspaper that it is clear that the investigation is not a criminal one but instead a political investigation based on the context and content of the questions.
He said he believes that the investigation is meant to intimidate persons who are deemed to have a different view from the government.
Gunraj said Ramsaroop was asked to return to the CID headquarters today, when it is expected that a statement would be given.
Several efforts made by this newspaper yesterday to contact the police for a comment proved futile.
The police have said that Persaud is the subject of an ongoing investigation stemming from a report of bribery and possible plans to move gold out of the country.
“It’s a report of alleged bribery and perhaps some movement of gold from the state of Guyana,” Police Commissioner Leslie James told a press conference in January.
He also made the point of assuring that the police are conducting “an impartial investigation,” while noting that Persaud is innocent until proven guilty. “What we have are statements which embodied certain things that I would not disclose for obvious reasons. We cannot say about monies, we can’t say about this, we can’t say about that… the person we are investigating, he is innocent until proven guilty and I would not be prejudicial with this investigation. This is an impartial investigation we have undertaken,” he explained, before adding that at the conclusion of the investigation, the police will seek legal advice on the way forward.
