Michael Carrington does not agree with David Patterson

Jun 09, 2022 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Kaieteur News – In November last year, I informed Guyanese and non-Guyanese who keep an eye on unfolding affairs here that I was in possession of a confidential dossier compiled by two persons intimately connected with the evolution of the AFC. It was commissioned by the leadership of the AFC, and titled, “The Way Forward.”
Only a selected few were privileged to see the dossier which is to be tabled at the AFC congress for adoption this Saturday. In plain, pellucid, unambiguous language, the dossier adumbrates an argument for two things. One is that there must be leadership changes but not at the moment.
The second one is a persuasive point – the AFC must leave the coalition with APNU (remember WPA says that the APNU no longer exists (see my column of Wednesday, April 13, 2022, “Should the PNC leader recall this man from GECOM?”). Since that announcement of mine in November, 91 persons, including media houses, requested the document online and I delivered on each request (see my column of Saturday, November 27, 2021, “Ruel Johnson used the S-word to describe the AFC’s dossier”).
When Neil Marks interviewed Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine in July 2020 during the assault on the March 2020 general election, I chastised him for not doing his research. On asking Roopnaraine questions on Walter Rodney, Roopnaraine was both sentimental and eulogistic about Rodney.
But Marks failed to ask Roopnaraine three questions that were compulsory. 1- Why did he not testify at the Rodney inquiry? 2- Why he voted in Parliament during the APNU+AFC’s time in office not to release the inquiry’s report? 3- What were his views about Dr. Rodney’s wife’s accusation against him in relation to her request to him for an enquiry since in 2005?
Last week, the journalist of iNews-Guyana that interviewed David Patterson, General-Secretary of the AFC, did not do his/her homework. Patterson denied in the interview that the AFC is considering pulling away from the APNU+AFC coalition. He said, “The Way Forward document is the way forward for the next two years for the Alliance For Change.”
If that journalist had done his/her research, he/she should have had a copy of The Way Forward dossier that in straightforward language urges the AFC to consider ending the coalition. If the document is to be debated then using any type of words, ending the marriage with APNU is up for consideration at the congress on Saturday.
That journalist has an obligation to the principles of journalism, to his/her profession and the Guyanese people to make contact with Patterson, quote the relevant section of The Way Forward and ask Patterson for a response. If not then the editors of iNews have serious professional problems. My copy of The Way Forward is available to them. Enter AFC executive, Michael Carrington.
Before we do that, I need to tell readers that when I announced in November 2021 that I had the dossier, three executives of the AFC contacted me for a copy. They did not have it. They never saw it. But the document was two years old at the time. Back to Carrington. He is a long standing stalwart of the AFC and former parliamentarian. On Saturday, he is contesting the position of General-Secretary.
Carrington told me yesterday that while Patterson was in his right to speak publicly, he, Carrington, as an executive member would like to assert that right too. He said he wants to make his position public. He believes the AFC should leave the coalition. Explaining his position, Carrington argues that Guyana needs a third force in politics and he sees the AFC as occupying that space.
He concedes that there are other parties that are vying to be the third force but he still accepts that the AFC better fits the bill. For this reason, he thinks the time has come for the AFC to revert to its original existence and leave the arrangement with APNU.
Here is the proposal on page 7 in The Way Forward to withdraw from the coalition: “Exit the current construct and move forward independently, which will allow the party to rebrand, reinvent and regain its identity. This may carry the shirt-term risk of not being in parliament.”
What do the authors mean by “not being in parliament?” Under the law, there is no party in parliament that holds seats under the name Alliance For Change. There are two opposition parties in the House – the Liberty and Justice Party and the APNU+AFC. If the AFC withdraws from APNU+AFC, it cannot sit as the AFC in the House. The law does not allow for that. This is where the fight will break out on Saturday. The reality is that the AFC is dead meat.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---