These sanctions are in breach of the PNCR’s constitution

Oct 16, 2008 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
A few weeks ago, it was reported in the media that the PNCR has decided to ask me to resign from the Parliament and to suspend me from the party for one year. At the time, I had received no missive from the party and therefore decided to await the receipt of the appropriate communication before I respond.
To date, I have not been contacted in any way by the PNCR to either ask me to resign or to advise me of my purported suspension. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that a release to the media is the PNCR preferred way of communicating with me on this matter, hence my decision to use the same medium to respond.
It is my understanding that the decision to sanction me flowed from the conclusions of the Disciplinary Committee, which was looking into allegations of misconduct associated with the activities of Team Alexander. Therefore, I wish to comment on the work of this committee.
The disciplinary committee wrote me on three occasions outlining 11 charges of misconduct against me. I never responded to the substance of the charges but I did write informing the committee of my concern over its composition. It was my view that a committee of this nature could not include persons who were actively involved, as opponents to Team Alexander, in the events that led to the charges being laid. Consequently, I declined to appear before the committee because it was not independent and was merely a surrogate to execute the political agenda of others.
Well, I was right. Apparently, I was reprimanded for the 11 alleged acts of misconduct the committee wrote me about. So then, what is the basis for the committee’s decision that I be suspended and recalled from Parliament?  The constitution of the PNCR clearly states that a written notice of charges is an integral part of the disciplinary process. For the committee to proceed with charges against me without first informing me in writing is not only in breach of the PNCR’s constitution but is also concrete evidence that the committee was acting in accordance with political directives.
I am aware that a number of persons, including representatives from a certain cultural organisation, approached Mr. Corbin to express concern about the disciplinary process and asked for it to be abandon. So then how are you going to sanction just one person when all are charged with basically the same offences? Simple!
Find other charges for that one, don’t inform him of the charges, find him guilty and apply the sanctions. So the disciplinary committee’s determination of the truthfulness of allegations that I was never informed of is a clear indication of the committee bending over backwards to ensure the objective is achieved.
I have noted the two secret charges and wish to comment as follows:
1. The General Secretary never wrote asking me to account. He wrote asking me to hand over and I considered his request improper. The party’s constitution clearly states that as a Regional Chairman, I could only be removed after an investigation. Since no such investigation was done, then the letter from the General Secretary informing me of my removal from office and asking that I hand over was an abuse of his office. My acquiescence would have made me complicit to an illegal and unconstitutional act.
2. I have documents to substantiate that the party was properly informed of my absence from the country.
I believe that at this point I should do nothing that can be interpreted as an acceptance of the propriety of secret charges. I therefore will not respond to the publicly announced call for my resignation. Further, I will not exercise my constitutional right to appeal the unconstitutionalities and injustices that will no doubt further tarnish the image of the party. I am aware that the sanctions against me are as a result of my fundamental differences with Mr. Corbin on true purpose of the party. I believe that the party exists to serve its supporters and the country. In order to do that the party must do the best it possibly can at elections and therefore must make all decisions with this objective in mind. I was therefore highly offended when, weeks after our humiliating defeat in the 2006 elections, Mr. Corbin was on the cocktail circuit discussing how he will conduct his 2011 campaign. This was an insult to the 40 plus percentage of the population that looks to the PNCR for deliverance from the atrocities of the PPP/C.
I believe that the party must live what it preaches. Therefore, if we want to challenge the PPP/C on constitutional issues, then what is wrong with us respecting our own little constitution?
I have always fought these issues and will continue to fight them and for me, recall from Parliament, one year suspension or even expulsion is a small price to pay when one is battling to ensure the supporters of the PNCR have a hope for the future.
James K. Mc Allister

---

---