Dear Editor,
I wish to respond to Ms Lurlene Nestor’s letter under the caption ‘Some statements by presidential candidates did not reflect the position of the PNCR.’ (SN, Jan 25).
Ms Nestor is a member of the Presidential Candidates Process Committee and therefore should not be publicly challenging the candidates, lest her unwarranted utterances be construed as reflecting bias and a conflict of interest.
Ms Nestor stated, “Firstly, as a Central Executive member of the PNCR I am not aware that any of the positions stated were discussed and decided upon by that body. I am also not aware that at the last General Council meeting, which I attended, any of the positions stated above was decided on.” Ms Nestor has been consistently advocating that members obey the party rules and constitution, yet she is engaging in discussing in the public domain what was or was not said in executive meetings of the PNCR which is against the party’s code of conduct.
I was present at the consultation held at St George’s High School, and at no time did any of the candidates say or imply that their source of information was from an executive meeting.
The Demerara Waves article stated among other things, “Nominee, Retired Brigadier David Granger expected that the presidential candidate would be the Representative of the PNCR’s 65 candidates and eventually opposition leader if the party is defeated at the polls expected by August, 2011. ‘In the unlikely event that the party loses, again the presidential candidate is expected to be the head of the list so he will become the Opposition Leader, he will go into the National Assembly,’ said Granger.”
Ms Nestor appears now to be questioning the integrity of Mr Granger and the other candidates that supported his view. This leaves the public to wonder whether Ms Nestor is saying that the four presidential candidates of the PNCR are giving the public false information, and that we should believe her interpretation of what transpired during the discussions before the signing of the code of conduct.
These are very serious accusations that could impugn the integrity and sincerity of these town hall meetings.
Ms Nestor also claimed that persons may have misinterpreted Mr Corbin’s statement that he would not be leader for life (any nursery school child would know that is virtually impossible). The fact is that was not what the leader said, but rather that unlike other leaders he would not die in office (which is self explanatory). This statement was made by Mr Corbin during his 2007 Congress address, and therefore could not be the basis on which the candidates made their statements.
Yours faithfully,
Julianne Gaul
