Kiskadee Watch Addresses Alleged Misrepresentation of Exchange with President Ali by Dhanpaul Narine

Kaieteur News published a letter on November 3, 2026, from Kiskadee Watch, wherein Albert Baldeo condemned what he described as the unfair and misleading portrayal of his interaction with President Irfaan Ali in a commentary by Dhanpaul Narine on October 30, 2026, concerning the President’s visit to New York. Narine's commentary reportedly characterized an unnamed "dedicated disruptor" as "loud and vexatious" and stated that this person "ended up in the arms of the President." Baldeo stated that the individual Narine referred to is Albert Baldeo, and that omitting his name does not prevent those familiar with the encounter from identifying him or lessen the harm caused by the disparaging portrayal.

As the person who was targeted, Baldeo provided his account, stating that President Ali initially singled him out for negative mention. Baldeo responded by posing questions regarding matters of significant public concern. Subsequently, President Ali requested that Baldeo offer positive remarks about him. Baldeo clarified that this exchange did not equate to him withdrawing his questions, abandoning his independence, or endorsing all actions of the President's administration. He assured President Ali that he would acknowledge due credit but also insisted that criticisms must be considered objectively.

Baldeo characterized Narine's description of the formal greeting as "malicious and obscene," suggesting it resembled the "rantings of a morally twisted mind." He indicated that both President Ali and himself, along with families, could pursue legal remedies for the insinuations made. He asserted that any implication that he was politically subdued or persuaded was a grave misrepresentation of his stance, noting that courtesy toward a President does not negate an advocate's concerns. Baldeo stated that his independence remains intact despite presidential criticism or courtesy.

He mentioned that he received high commendations and gratitude from Dr. Cheddi Jagan, the father of the PPP and Guyana, and that his affiliation is recognized by many, including President Ali and VP Bharrat Jagdeo, granting him the moral and legal right to critique the current policies and actions of the leadership.

Baldeo explained that the questions he raised focused first on the MV Barima tragedy, specifically inquiring why the victims' bodies had not been recovered, when recovery would occur, and what answers the grieving families could expect. He noted that contemporaneous reporting confirmed the President addressed the disaster during the meeting and renewed his commitment to salvaging the vessel. He maintained that the subject warranted serious questioning, and while the President complied, more information was needed.

He stated that families awaiting their loved ones' remains deserved an advocate willing to ask difficult questions, asserting that their grief should not be diminished by a celebratory meeting or an enthusiastic audience. He described asking for dignity for the deceased, answers for the living, and accountability from those in authority as a legitimate exercise of his public responsibility as a veteran, elected leader in NY.

Furthermore, Baldeo stated he asked the President to address the controversy surrounding his farm, including questions about its acquisition, financing, development, regulatory approvals, and any connection between private interests and public office. He pointed out that Kiskadee Watch had previously reported demands for disclosure from former EPA Executive Director Dr. Vincent Adams, the Guyana Trades Union Congress, and others. Baldeo argued that a subject serious enough for the newspaper to investigate should not be dismissed as mere vexation when a citizen raises it directly with the President. He added that many had complimented and thanked him for his "brave and necessary advocacy."

Regarding the farm, Baldeo mentioned that President Ali stated the farm was acquired before he became President, was financed through banking arrangements, and was disclosed to the Integrity Commission. He contended that the public deserves the chance to seek clarification and supporting documentation, and that asking these questions does not imply wrongdoing but gives accountability practical meaning.

Baldeo stated that he was prepared to stand alone if necessary to raise these concerns, a quality he felt was absent in pundits like Dhanpaul Narine. He mentioned that Narine, who he claimed has held grudges against him since their 2005 City Council election defeat, may dislike his manner or disagree with his judgment, but minimizing the efficacy of his actions was dishonest.

He detailed that his advocacy record extends beyond that evening, citing documented work for the community, immigrants, and marginalized groups, and monetary donations to religious organizations, including Dhanpaul’s Trimurti Bhavan Mandir, which he claimed is not subject to elections or financial accountability, with Chunelall Narine as the sole pandit. Baldeo also stated that he donated money to initiate a sick children’s fund, but it was never realized or accounted for.

Baldeo contrasted this with publications such as the NY Times, Daily News, Newsday, NY Post, Indian Panorama, Village Voice, Caribbean Life, Kaieteur News, West Indian, Black Star News, NY 1, CBS, NBS, ABC, Pix 11, and others, which he claimed recognized his record of courage, advocacy, and service, despite Narine's dismissive characterizations attempting to erase that work. He viewed the passage as a perverse attack disguised as political commentary, arguing that belittling someone's willingness to confront power is not a substitute for demonstrating comparable courage or publicly conveying the concerns raised.

Baldeo asserted that personal rivalry, resentment, or jealousy should not influence whether an identifiable individual receives fair media treatment, nor should political sympathy or perceived servility excuse selective reporting. He stressed that a columnist's freedom to criticize carries a responsibility to differentiate observable events from insinuations about another person's motives, integrity, or independence.

He concluded by stating that the broader principle is that Guyanese abroad should be able to question their leaders without being labeled troublesome for refusing to applaud on demand. He affirmed that he would be among the first to call Washington if Guyana's sovereignty were threatened, and that the diaspora's contribution includes scrutiny, experience, independent judgment, and concern for those whose voices struggle to reach powerful entities. He asserted that a newspaper committed to public accountability should defend that space, noting that the MV Barima families deserve answers and the diaspora deserves respect.