The Opposition People’s National Movement has put arrangements in place for San Fernando East party group elections to start last Friday (September 4) and run until October 10, towards the constituency executive elections. However, San Fernando East MP Brian Manning has rejected the process and sought a suspension until he receives information, including why 15 party groups were omitted.
This was confirmed by PNM executive officials after last Friday’s special General Council held to confirm the report of a team verifying SFE party groups. Manning’s concerns had included verification. The team’s report was examined by PNM’s Central Executive last Wednesday.
This followed the PNM leadership’s efforts to resolve tensions in the SFE unit between Manning and Alexis. In June, both lodged complaints against each other about the running of the constituency, including Manning’s concern about a by-election which was improperly held. PNM deputy leaders Jennifer Baptiste-Primus and Sanjiv Boodhu were among a panel that investigated their claims and obtained no proof of the corruption Manning alleged.
At the height of tensions two weeks ago, both sides exploded publicly. The leadership met with the executive, which subsequently resigned. The leadership also publicly rebuked Manning.
On party groups verification, which is needed prior to the election of a new executive, the Verification Committee found there are 30 valid party groups in SFE.
Internal elections – including Youth and Women’s League unit elections – were mandated to begin last Friday and conclude by October 10. A new constituency executive will then be elected.
A five-member team was appointed to conduct and oversee SFE’s internal elections. It comprises PNM election officer Indar Parasram (chairman) and other National Executive officers Maxine Richards, Curtis Shade, Alisha Romano, and Sharon Felix.
Manning rejects arrangements
However, executive officials, listing Manning’s concerns, said he:
• Rejected the Central Executive’s decision, following the Verification Committee’s report, since he felt the five persons are national executive officers or current Central Executive members and were appointed by the CE and answer to that body. Manning felt that wasn’t an oversight but “was the same body examining its own work, through officers of its own choosing”, minus an independent body.
• Took issue with the CE’s view that “no other person/group is authorised to conduct any party unit election” since this excluded scrutiny, including by himself as MP and independent observers.
• Rejected three of the five appointees, alleging one member wrote a “scathing” letter on behalf of the Women’s League attacking him; another allegedly featured in media reports alongside Alexis, and the chairman recently oversaw an SFE executive by-election, currently the subject of a complaint before General Council.
• Expressed concern over the disqualification of 15 party groups “who served the PNM for many years” and that there was no notice, reasons, or opportunity to be heard. He felt all party groups were denied recognition by SFE’s former executive, were excluded and asked for the criteria to be published and for groups to be allowed to answer before being disenfranchised.
• Requested suspension of the SFE exercise pending determination of his points, scrutiny of the five Overseer members, reconstitution of the team with fresh members with his input in selection; reasons for party groups’ omission, independent scrutiny of elections.
Party officials confirmed Manning sought a response by mid-month, in the absence of which, he indicated his intention to place matters before the appropriate internal PNM fora and “any other body having jurisdiction.” They, however, said Manning remained willing to meet to resolve matters.
More contention
PNM officials said Manning also rejected the Inquiry report on several grounds and requested the withdrawal of certain findings. They said he wanted his concerns detailed at last Friday’s General Council, but they weren’t.
Among the grounds he cited were:
• Non-receipt of the Inquiry and Verification teams’ reports and not being invited to answer them before Central Executive/General Council adoption.
• While he didn’t dispute that the relationship with Alexis had broken down, he felt this was a symptom, and the report said nothing about the cause.
• He appointed Gronlund-Nunez manager of SFE’s area manager system and not “Constituency co-ordinator”, and the Committee had the means to summon information if it was unclear. It was an operational post within the MP’s constituency office and within his purview to make.
• The Committee didn’t identify the party provision which was “breached” by the appointment.
• Misleading claim that he wasn’t interested in mediation, since issues cannot be resolved by private accommodation while formal complaints concerning the conduct of an SFE election remain undetermined; also allegations regarding Alexis.
• Comment on his election performance wasn’t relevant and ignored the national swing in the 2025 general election. Resources were withheld from SFE by the last administration, and there was a national “No-vote” whisper campaign allegedly linked to a senior member of the present national executive.
• Lack of action against people despite finding that the Constituency Executive acted ultra vires the PNM’s Constitution on the by-election.
• Expressed concern that Indar Parasram was appointed to chair the team supervising SFE party group elections when Parasram headed the by-election, which the Inquiry Committee stated was held ultra vires the PNM’s Constitution.
PNM political leader Pennelope Beckles and chairman Marvin Gonzales didn’t reply to the issues. Other executive officials maintained that the process is in place and the matter is being addressed.
