CALLS are mounting for the resignation of A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) Member of Parliament, Mr. Desmond Trotman, after some of his statements made before the Linden unrests, Commission of Inquiry has extremely embarrassed the opposition party and brought his standing in the National Assembly into disrepute. Trotman, on Monday, told the Commission of Inquiry that he does not believe that protestors’ blocking of the Wismar/MacKenzie Bridge, which provides a link and gateway to many hinterland and mining communities, was illegal given the circumstances and motives of the crowd and what they wanted to achieve. Trotman had also admitted that protestors used debris, old vehicles and other forms of waste to carry out the act which appeared to have prompted a response from the ranks on the ground at the time.
 The APNU MP said that conduct of the protestors were still “exemplary” as he admitted that they played music, cooked food and engaged in “festive activities” on the bridge while it was blocked for several days and hours while hundreds of other Guyanese citizens were denied their democratic right to travel, food and work.
Trotman, even when cross-examined by Jamaican Senior Counsel K.D. Knight, who asked him “as a Member of Parliament wanting to ensure that good order is maintained in society whether he is of the view that blocking a bridge amounts to exemplary conduct”.
The MP responded, saying that he will have to take into consideration the circumstances that led to the blocking of the bridge: the electricity hike imposed on the mining town and the government’s refusal to meet with the people of Linden upon their request. He noted that “protest demonstrations around the world are always conducted at the place where the maximum impact is made, and I believe that it is in that situation that those people took the decision to block the bridge… for maximum impact”.
The chairman of the commission, Jamaica’s former Chief Justice Lensley Wolfe immediately asked Trotman whether he is suggesting that the government’s failure to do something entitles a person affected by that failure to break the law, and the MP hotly replied “I don’t consider the action of blocking the bridge breaking the law… I thought it was a necessary action at that particular point in time”.
Sources close to APNU have informed this publication that Trotman’s statements could have far reaching implications for his party’s flagship position that it will never support criminals or uphold any form illegality. It also sharply conflicts with APNU Chairman’s position and promotion of alleged “peaceful protests which occur within the confines of the law”.
Already, Trotman is coming in for harsh criticisms from civil society, lawyers and other members of academic who were not only baffled by the manner and arrogance displayed by a sitting law maker but rather by the callous manner in which he responded to simple questions which could have offered more insight into what took place.
A prominent attorney at law said that “Trotman’s statement as an MP can have far reaching implications for not only the probe but rather what we define as peaceful and legal protests in the future. His statements scream that the APNU is in support of the blocking of the bridge and upheld this illegality”.  
Dwayne Hackette, a letter writer, said “it is most embarrassing for the leaders of APNU, when one of their serving lawmakers in the National Assembly, Mr. Desmond Trotman, would boldly state before the Linden CoI that engaging in unlawful or illegal behaviour is necessary. This is a dangerous statement and has severe implications for the continued presence of this lawmaker in the National Assembly as he has now brought disrepute to our Parliament and, by extension, each and every member”.
Trotman’s submissions to the Commission of Inquiry sharply contradict those made by his colleague, MP Vanessa Kission, who took the stand before the commission several days ago.