Dear Editor,
Reference is made to comments made about the PNC 2009 elections in the article ‘Granger keen on being PNCR candidate’ (SN, September 30). The article said that, “Following last year’s Biennial Congress, Richard Van West-Charles charged that the electoral process was ‘fraudulent,’ from membership registration to voting. He contended that the party was ‘hijacked through an illegal process by personal agendas’ once again and he submitted a report of irregularities that affected the results. ‘The results of the elections at the 16th Biennial Congress [are] not a reflection of the will of the party’s membership nor [are they] reflective of the will of the delegates who turned up,’ the report concludes, adding ‘If irregularities did not exist Mr Winston Murray could have been elected leader.’”
In as much as this was said the article failed to carry the other side which would have presented readers with a balanced view. Stabroek News failed to report what Mr Winston Murray, who contested the election, said about the election. Neither were the comments in the report of Mr Joseph Harmon, rtd, Lt Col, attorney-at-law, the returning officer, noted.
Mr Winston Murray told reporters, including Stabroek News who carried his comments in August and September 2009, “Yes, I am prepared to accept the results… because the margin is so wide, that even if there were – as I believe there were – flaws in the process and irregularities in the procedures, it is clear that Mr Corbin would have won.”
Mr Harmon said that “Candidates were entitled to identify scrutineers who were accredited to monitor their interests during the process. A Chief Scrutineer and six other scrutineers were appointed by Candidate Murray and duly accredited to monitor the process. One Chief scrutineer and three other scrutineers were appointed by Candidate Corbin and duly accredited. Mr. Van West Charles had earlier submitted a list of scrutineers who were duly accredited to monitor the process. All of these scrutineers were entitled to raise any concerns with me or any of my assistants during the conduct of the elections.” He goes on to say “Counting of these votes continued on Sunday August 23 from 11:00 AM in the presence of several candidates, scrutineers, and independent observers.”
Before the actual voting Mr Harmon reported he “held a meeting with the two remaining contestants for the post of Leader, Mr. Winston Murray and Mr. Robert Corbin, to hear from them if there were any concerns that they wished to bring to my attention. Present at that meeting were their Chief Scrutineers, two of my assistants, Mr. Oscar Clarke, General Secretary of the PNCR and Mr. Lance Carberry, the Head of the Accreditation Committee. Both candidates raised a number of issues. Among the claims were that a few persons were being denied delegate status, two of whom were specifically named by Mr. Murray and three by Mr. Corbin; an allegation that a few persons who were not accredited had delegate cards, a complaint that one person had a bulk of delegate cards in her possession. The General Secretary and the Accreditation Officer addressed these matters. Source records were perused in my presence to clarify some of these matters. At the end, there were approximately fourteen names that were still the subject of query. One of which was a claim by both Mr. Corbin and Mr. Murray that seven persons from the Belladrum GYSM group were denied their delegate status albeit they had submitted their names. This matter was to be investigated.”
He also clearly stated in his report that “while there were still a few matters to be investigated the Leadership candidates agreed that we could proceed with the elections.”
On objections, Mr. Harmon said “No objections or complaints were lodged by any of the candidates after the Election. I am satisfied that the process was free fair and transparent and the results reflect the will of the delegates of the Congress.”
There is no election that does not have a few hiccups since we are dealing with human beings. Most importantly if the contenders – Messrs Corbin and Murray – have equally participated in the process, were allowed to air and have their concerns addressed by the returning officer and none lodged any objections or complaints, the public should be made equally aware of these facts.
It is understandable that some may want to see the end of the PNC, and deriding and misrepresenting the party may be in the interest of some, but for those who are not so inclined and those who seek the truth they deserve to hear all sides of the story and make their own judgment, as against being led how to think with the exclusion of pertinent information. SN article shows that even the media has an agenda and not always one that includes being factual and balanced.
Yours faithfully,
B Beniprashad Rayman
PNCR Executive Member
Editor’s note
Ms Rayman has only quoted a portion of the paragraph dealing with the PNC elections, and has omitted its context entirely. The allegations of the rigging of party elections were cited as an illustration of the statement, “In recent years there has been bitter infighting in the PNCR with some members publicly criticizing the operation of the party.” The following paragraph goes on to say that Mr Corbin “has been pressured to quit as party leader and presidential candidate as many in the PNCR view him as unelectable.” As such, therefore, the section did not constitute a report on the party elections at all and did not require us to carry comments from the returning officer or the candidate who lost.
Our reports on the PNCR elections per se, have included responses at one point or another from both Mr Murray and Mr Harmon, as Ms Rayman herself acknowledges.
