A letter dated October 11 written by Murray who died on November 22, and another signed by him and members of the group which supported him dated November 6 have been seen by Stabroek News.
In the first, addressed to PNCR General Secretary Oscar Clarke, Murray expressed concern about what he said appeared to be one nominee for the party presidential candidacy being given preferential treatment while the other, which was also sent to Clarke, addressed the process to select the candidate.
However, when approach-ed for a comment on the matters raised in the letters Clarke was not forthcoming. “I do not propose to give you any reaction to any letter I didn’t send you,” he told this newspaper; “You can write anything, I don’t have a problem with that.”
Clarke is also the convener of the Presidential Candi-date Process Committee and Murray stated that it was in both capacities that he was writing to him. In the letter, the late PNCR MP alluded to the claims made in recent years especially, that “the party’s processes and systems for its internal elections, at various levels, have invariably been attended by claims (rightly or wrongly) of lack of transparency, of improprieties, and even of outright fraud.” He later went on to say, “Needless to say I assume the party is also interested in a fair process.”
It was in that context that he expressed unease about the fact it appeared as though some within “the party leadership have already identified a preferred candidate.”
“There is a pamphlet in circulation produced by Mr Denton Osborne (who it is known works directly with the leader) with photographs of the leader and the particular candidate with the headed words “We stand with our leader Corbin and President … (name of candidate),” the letter read.
It continued that the said candidate had made a public announcement saying that he had been nominated by some groups and Murray called on Clarke to clarify whether such a process had been sanctioned by the party.
According to the selection process outlined by Clarke recently, the nomination of candidates by groups started on November 27.
Further, Murray stated, party officials in some locations who had facilitated visits by his support team had been “lambasted by party secretariat personnel” and ordered not to facilitate such visits. The former Shadow Minister of Finance said he found this “reprehensible if we truly believe in democracy and fairness.”
“I raise these matters because they could be indicative of the application of double standards in the process and of the foreboding of a seriously tainted process. Surely we must know the eyes of all Guyana are upon us. Some may not care,” the letter continued.
Murray concluded by exhorting Clarke to act, stating that he believed the vast majority of the party’s members would be concerned that the system to identify the presidential candidate be beyond reproach both internally and nationally “for very obvious reasons.”
In addition to the signature of Murray, the second letter of November 6 carried the names of, Aubrey Norton, Mervyn Williams, Dr Richard Van West Charles, Ronald Austin, Gillian Burton, Kadim Khan, Priest Oba Mwanza, James Bond and Earl Lambert. In it concern was expressed about two reports carried in this newspaper which seemed to suggest that a special congress would be convened to elect a presidential candidate, even although the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of the PNCR had not at that point taken a decision on the matter.
It was only on November 19 that Clarke outlined the final plans on the selection process which spelled out the procedures including a special congress, but on October 31 and November 3 SN had carried unattributed reports of similar tenor, the first of which stated that “the proposed procedure to identify the candidate would include the convening of a Special Congress where an election will be held, after a list of recommended candidates in order of priority is submitted to CEC.”
Citing those articles the letter stated that it seemed that a certain view was being promoted as if it were the decided position.
“Obviously, this is a very prejudicial position to put in the public domain in advance of a decision by the CEC and, if the CEC comes out with that position, the way is open for claims of pre-determined positions being put in the public domain,” the group said.
They added that they had “formed the distinct impression that a preferred position is being subtly canvassed,” and they were “seriously tempted to put a more balanced perspective in the public domain,” and by way of their letter were indicating that they would be forced to say some things publicly.
When contacted yesterday, Austin said their views remained the same; this being that a special congress was going to “rob the members” of a democratic vote.
“One man one vote, that has always been our position,” he maintained.
However, the party’s leadership has dismissed this as impractical with Clarke and PNCR Leader Robert Corbin at the November 19 news briefing citing cost and logistical reasons as inhibiting factors.
“The committee itself felt that this was a very onerous task being asked of the party to be able to go to every party group in every region to hold a one-man-one-vote election and it was going to be costly.”
“You talk about being able to have a system that is transparent which means that all of these various persons who are running will have to get their scribes, their people to go and check … you’ll have to get a plane to fly people around the country…,” Clarke had said.
Corbin had added that the system of having party delegates represent their groups in the voting was in keeping with the party’s constitution and ensured that all party members were involved in the selection process.
He noted that in the past there had been concerns about the transparency of the process and stated that to go with the one-man-one-vote idea could exacerbate the situation.
“There have always been concerns of transparency and all kinds of allegations and to manage and supervise a system where you’re going to have 800 or 600 sets of elections could also multiply those problems. We thought that it is better to improve the system … ensure that you have a transparent system at the party’s congress because it’s not only going to affect the congress,” Corbin said.
He had noted that the highest offices of the party are voted on by the same system and it should therefore be good enough to decide who would be the presidential candidate.
Meanwhile, as it related to the letter from Murray’s camp Austin said it was clear to them that there was an individual “who seems to have been favoured by the party hierarchy.” However, he did not name that individual.
The others to have publicly announced their interest in the party’s presidential candidacy are PNCR Vice-Chairman Basil Williams, Brigadier (retd) David Granger and former PNC minister Dr. Faith Harding.
Granger is on record endorsing the selection system saying that he thinks it is “fair and transparent and likely to produce the best candidate.”
He told Stabroek News that it was democratic in the sense that all members who belong to party groups will have their opinions represented at the regional and national levels.
“Bear in mind that it’s the first time a system of primaries is being tried by any party here. The only problem is that it might be slow because all groups have to express their views,” he added.
Party groups started meeting on November 27 to make and formally document their list of nominees for the presidential candidacy and were to complete this yesterday while from today until December 12, the regional secretaries are to receive the group nominations. They will then convene a special extended regional committee meeting, including a representative from each of the groups which submitted nominations, to formally agree and document the regional list of nominees.
Where no functioning regional committee exists, the party group chairman or secretary will send the group nominations directly to the General Secretary, the party has said. By December 18, all regional secretaries are to submit their regional list of nominees to the General Secretary. This is to be followed by the General Secretary preparing a national list of nominees by December 22. Those who accept their nomination will be required to submit a CV along with a brief biographical presentation to the Presidential Candidate Process Committee. The Presidential Candidate Process Committee will then prepare a list of these nominated candidates for submission and approval of the CEC. The approved list of nominees is to be publicised by December 30.
