Lead Editor-Politics
The PNM’s hold on San Fernando East, unbroken since the constituency was created in 1967, is being deemed under threat after an internal committee found MP Brian Manning’s popularity “may be dwindling” amid an investigation into his bitter rupture with the constituency executive.
The finding is contained in a confidential July 31 report by a People’s National Movement Committee of Inquiry into the affairs of the San Fernando East constituency, obtained by Guardian Media.
The committee warned that the continuing impasse between Manning and then constituency chairman Patricia Alexis, along with members of the Constituency Executive, served neither side and was “inimical to the continued success of the PNM in San Fernando East.”
Manning retained the constituency in the 2025 General Election following a recount requested by the United National Congress (UNC), defeating candidate John Michael Alibocus by 673 votes. In comparison, he won the seat by 5,173 votes in the 2020 election.
The committee specifically referenced that decline in support in concluding that Manning’s popularity “may be dwindling.”
The PNM has never lost the San Fernando East constituency, which was represented for decades by Manning’s father, former prime minister and PNM political leader Patrick Manning.
Notably, the report was completed before Alexis and the rest of the Constituency Executive resigned. Its findings therefore reflect conditions that existed while the executive remained in office.
The inquiry was triggered by complaints submitted separately by Manning and Alexis regarding the operations of the constituency.
The committee was chaired by Deputy Political Leader Jennifer Baptiste-Primus and included Dr Marilyn Lewis-Tobias, Senator Dr Amery Browne, National Youth League chairman Patrick Phillip and Deputy Political Leader Sanjiv Boodhu.
Members reviewed correspondence and written submissions from both sides and conducted interviews with Manning, Alexis and witnesses identified by them.
Its findings underscored the extent of the division.
The committee found there was “no functional and/or working relationship” between Manning and Alexis and several members of the Constituency Executive, including some San Fernando City Corporation councillors.
Another key finding centred on Manning’s appointment of Tina Gronlund-Nunez as Constituency Coordinator.
The committee determined that Manning had appointed Gronlund-Nunez to the position. However, it said it remained unclear whether he had communicated that appointment to her, as she reportedly stated she was unaware of it.
More significantly, the committee concluded that the appointment was “inconsistent with the Party’s constitutional structure and the proper functioning of the Constituency.”
Despite the breakdown in relations, the committee stopped short of declaring the relationship irreparable. It found that both sides would need to compromise to find common ground.
The report noted that Alexis expressed a willingness to participate in mediation, while Manning indicated no interest in that option.
However, not all of the findings were critical of Manning.
The committee also concluded that the Constituency Executive had acted “ultra vires the Party Constitution” by failing to provide the required seven days’ public notice before conducting an election for an executive office.
Manning referred to Investigations Committee
Meanwhile, Guardian Media has learned that Manning is facing a separate internal party process after the PNM received seven complaints from ordinary party members concerning his conduct.
Sources said the complaints came from members in several constituencies and alleged that Manning’s actions had brought the party into disrepute and damaged its public image.
The PNM’s Central Executive has referred all seven complaints to the party’s Investigations Committee for consideration.
While the matter is now before the committee, no timeline has been set for completion of the process.
The referral is separate from the July 31 Committee of Inquiry and its findings concerning the San Fernando East dispute.
Guardian Media understands that some complaints relate to Manning’s handling of the controversy and his public commentary on the matter.
The party had previously urged Manning to cease discussing the dispute publicly and instead utilise internal party mechanisms to address his concerns.
The Investigations Committee will now examine the complaints under the PNM’s disciplinary procedures.
Probe finds three of Manning’s party groups could not be verified
A second internal PNM investigation has delivered findings on one of the central issues at the heart of the controversy: the number and status of Party Groups in San Fernando East.
A Verification Committee report dated August 28, also obtained by Guardian Media, examined Party Groups operating between July 1, 2024, and May 31, 2026.
Its key finding was that 30 Party Groups were verified in San Fernando East, in addition to the Women’s League and Youth League. All 30 were deemed financial for the purposes of the exercise.
The verification was significant because competing Party Group lists formed a major component of the dispute between Manning and the Constituency Executive.
Three additional groups, identified as PG12, PG16 and PG35, appeared on a list submitted by Manning but could not be verified as existing Party Groups.
The committee found that documentation for PG12 lacked contact information, while no chairperson or secretary was listed for PG16.
For PG35, contact information provided for the chairperson proved incorrect. Although the secretary indicated that information would be submitted, no material had been received by the reporting date.
The committee also noted that Manning did not confirm knowing the officials of any of the three groups. It therefore found insufficient evidence to verify their existence, leaving the final number of Party Groups at 30.
The committee also considered Manning’s claim that seven prospective Party Groups had sought to register but were frustrated by the Constituency Executive.
Manning alleged that individuals associated with the groups had informed the executive of their intentions and that no action was taken. The executive denied the allegation.
However, the committee found the claim was not substantiated by the evidence before it.
According to the report, no documentation was produced showing that the groups had completed the party’s administrative requirements, paid initial membership dues or formally submitted requests for recognition.
Another issue involved PG42, which appeared in material associated with the PNM’s 2025 candidate nomination process but was absent from both Manning’s list and the Constituency Executive’s records.
The committee treated the matter as an administrative discrepancy and made no finding regarding the group’s status.
It also examined correspondence attributed to Gregory Lange regarding assistance in forming two Party Groups. However, the committee was unable to independently authenticate the correspondence or verify the claims contained within it.
The report stated that, despite further inquiries, contact information for Lange could not be obtained and committee members were unable to interview him.
The verification exercise also exposed weaknesses in the PNM’s record-keeping systems.
Eleven of the 30 verified Party Groups had election returns that failed to identify a polling division, while records revealed instances of overlapping polling division assignments.
The committee also identified financial documentation gaps. Although all 30 groups were recorded as financial, paper receipts could not be located for PG6, PG18 and PG21.
Members were advised that the payments were likely made through the bank. However, the committee stressed that those transactions had not been independently verified by the date of the report.
Despite these deficiencies, the groups were accepted as legitimate and financially sound based on election returns and other supporting information.
The committee ultimately found “material record-keeping and reconciliation deficiencies” within the party’s records. However, it concluded that the shortcomings did not provide sufficient evidence to attribute deliberate misconduct to any identified individual.
Manning responded to questions about the report by sending Guardian Media a letter he sent to General Secretary Foster Cummings. He questioned why his narrow 2025 victory is being scrutinised while senior party officials who performed worse at the polls have escaped similar examination.
“Consider the same election the Committee has chosen to weigh. The Political Leader retained a safe seat by a margin narrower to mine,” Manning said.
He also pointed to the PNM’s General Secretary, whom he said lost a marginal constituency previously won by almost 4,000 votes.
Manning countered that San Fernando East emerged as the PNM’s “only seat” from Toco to Icacos after its 2025 defeat.
“Whom would the Central Executive like to thank for San Fernando East?” he asked.
Guardian Media also reached out to PNM Chairman Marvin Gonzales, however, he declined to discuss the reports.
Gonzales said, “These are internal party matters that are being managed by the General Council and Central Executive of the Party. The tradition of the party is that we prefer these matters to be handled internally by the party’s organs and officers. I do hope that we continue to follow these traditions in the best interest of the general membership.”
