Those outside the PNCR must have indulged themselves with a sly smile on reading last week that Ms Annette Ferguson was calling on the party to investigate its Georgetown District election. She was quoted as saying that it should “rise to … practising fairness, honesty” as well as “being democratic when it comes to its internal business or affairs”. ‘Being democratic’ proved something of a challenge for the party for a period of five months in 2020 when it was the dominant partner in a coalition government, so if it is indeed the case that the Georgetown District election did not meet the requisite standard of integrity for such exercises it would be reasonable to conclude that it is following a pattern.
Interestingly, subsequent to the changes to its constitution during the Hoyte era, the PNCR has been the more democratic of the two major parties in this country. At least, that is on paper. For a time, however, the rules do seem to have been adhered to as far as everyone is aware, the first suggestions of discomfiture coming in relation to the leadership election before the last.
And now we have Ms Ferguson with allegations in relation to the Georgetown District election at its conference of October 2, after she lost her bid for the chairmanship. As we noted in our report on the matter this is the area covering the largest support base of the party, so it has considerable significance. It was also where former Chair of the PNCR Volda Lawrence found her support, since she was also Chairman of the District. She was well-known and popular there and over a number of years was credited with bringing in the party votes at election times. She decided not to stand on this occasion, but according to Ms Ferguson’s letter of October 3 to the party’s Central Executive Committee, which was seen by this newspaper, she assumed responsibility for hosting the elections.
Ms Ferguson itemised a veritable litany of irregularities beginning with the failure of then Vice Chair Hazel Pinder to respond to a letter she had written dated September 18, raising concerns about the lack of information provided about the elections. Initial particulars had been issued on August 15, but all that was said then was that a returning officer would be identified and an accreditation committee set up.
Further details were supplied by outgoing Chair Lawrence, who called a meeting with group leaders and told them that registration would take place on election day from 8 am to 11 am, and a meeting would be convened with the returning officer and the candidates. In addition, there would be a screen where the ballots would be displayed in the interests of transparency. Ms Ferguson said they did not learn the name of the returning officer at that meeting. However, she went on, she received a WhatsApp message from Aubrey Retemyer asking for her email address, and sending her a “ten points” advisory in relation to how the election was to be conducted.
Ms Ferguson claimed that on the day of the elections itself there were many irregularities, beginning with the fact that registration did not end at 11 am but continued on until around midday, in addition to which the meeting with the returning officer and candidates never took place. It was only when voting began around 1.35 pm that Mr Retemyer, who had earlier asked her for her email address, was introduced as the returning officer. According to our report Ms Ferguson wrote:
“Cde Retheymer [sic] failed to announce or declare [the] number of delegates registered to vote. Also, Cde Retheymer failed to inform delegates [of the] number of ballots to be cast and what method the voting process will take. At the commencement of voting, Cde Retheymer announced the number of delegates for the following groups: Alberttown and Albouystown but failed to continue. Cde Retheymer went against his own ten points guidelines.”
She went on to allege that although Mr Retemyer had said only delegates who had registered would be allowed to vote, in fact there were a number of people who were unregistered but were still allowed to cast their ballots. On the other side of the coin there were those who were registered but were not allowed to vote, and she highlighted the case of Mr Roysdale Forde, an MP and an automatic delegate who despite being registered was denied permission to vote. When she asked about this she was told it was a decision of the Committee.
Then there was the matter of the mobile armbands. Delegates had armbands or were issued with a sticker, which had to be worn throughout the election period, said Mr Ferguson, but among other allegations she claimed that some of those voting for the position of Chair took off their armbands and gave them to people who had not been registered. The reverse of this was the case of the person without an armband who was allowed to vote as the ballots were about to be emptied.
But Ms Ferguson was not finished. At the time of the announcement of results, Mr Retemyer told Mr Clayton Newman, a party member, that 214 people had been registered to vote and 211 ballots had been cast, although she had not been officially informed of this even though she was a candidate. As it transpired, however, the results indicated Mr Troy Garraway received 121 votes and Ms Ferguson 87. There were five spoilt ballots bringing the total to 213. When the Returning Officer was approached he said that verification would take place on the following day.
So now Ms Ferguson wants the Central Executive Committee of the party to investigate the conduct of the elections in relation to the matters she related, in addition to why ballots were not counted and verified in the presence of candidates, why balloting clerks only issued ballots and did not check registration, why candidates did not know who was on the Accreditation Committee, why the name of the returning officer was not announced before polling day and why Ms Pinder had not answered her letter.
When Stabroek News put the allegations to a senior source in the PNCR, we received the not unanticipated stock response: “What I can tell you at this time is that we are looking at this. They are some serious allegations but the matter is a PNCR one and PNCR, like the democratic party it is, will be addressing it. We are confident that the process was in accordance with our principles and that is all I can say at this time.”
Since confidence was expressed that the process was in conformity with “our principles”, it doesn’t seem that at the highest echelons of the PNCR it is thought there is much to investigate. Of course, the question arises as to exactly what the words “our principles” actually mean. Given the party’s recent history, there will be no confidence that these actually accord with democratic norms, and if that is so, no irregularities will be found. The same will be true if the CEC recognises that things went awry, but for political reasons they do not want to follow up on it.
But contrary to what the source said, the matter is not just a PNCR one. The conventions and principles by which our political parties conduct themselves is important to the entire electorate in a democracy. And allegations of fraudulence even at this level have to be given an airing, and have to be answered in the public domain. The PNCR’s reputation took a real battering in 2020, and it will be a very long time and a punctilious adherence to the rules of democracy including at the party level, before it will have any hope of beginning to mend its reputation in the eyes of voters. In this sense, Ms Ferguson’s allegations are a test case.
