Freddie Kissoon’s folly

Jun 23, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Kaieteur News – I am compelled to respond to Frederick Kissoon’s June 20, 2025, column in the Guyana Chronicle titled, “Aubrey Norton, James McAllister and Arthur Koestler.” It was an amusing little read to see Kissoon’s feeble attempt at an intellectual philosophical analysis. He attempted to invoke Koestler’s argument about human frailty to highlight what he considers to be moral inconsistency or hypocrisy in the position I took regarding Amanza Walton-Desir and others within the People’s National Congress Reform. This was the limit of his intellectual thought—because everything went downhill from there.

The foundation of any serious intellectual analysis is authentic data and accurate historical material. This is where Frederick Kissoon departed from intellectualism, academia, and intellectual honesty. What is clear is that Kissoon decided he wanted to use Koestler’s arguments and fabricated stories to suit the conclusions he wanted. Let us take a look at Kissoon’s fabrications.

Kissoon claimed that as soon as Corbin assumed leadership of the PNCR he “… had to contend with guerrilla warfare led by Norton, Alexander, and McAllister.” That claim is demonstrably false. It is not possible that someone who claims to be an academic and researcher could get facts that are publicly available so wrong. When Desmond Hoyte died in 2002, Robert Corbin, who was then Party Chairman, assumed leadership as per the constitution. Within weeks, Corbin convened a weekend retreat of the entire Central Executive Committee, at which he spoke extensively about his crucibles. He was convincing and impactful, and we emerged from the retreat united behind Robert Corbin as Party Leader. So much so that when Corbin decided he did not want the General Council to ratify his position as Leader and instead wanted to be elected at a Congress, he summoned a Special Congress, where the single contestant was Art Ricknaught. Norton, Alexander, and McAllister were not in the mix.

Corbin went to the 2006 elections with the full support of all in the Party. I was the Campaign Manager in Region 3, Alexander was the Campaign Manager in Georgetown, and Aubrey Norton was actively involved as well. Despite our fervent support and efforts, the PNCR emerged from the elections with the poorest results ever since its formation. Internally, we advocated for a full review, but this was resisted, and this, I believe, was the beginning of the unraveling of the coalition Corbin built within the Party’s leadership.

In 2007, several members of the Central Executive Committee—including Deborah Backer, Dr. Dalgleish Joseph, and Hamley Case—requested a meeting with the Party Leader and informed him that we intended to challenge him at the congress scheduled for that same year. His response was to threaten disciplinary action against us if we made our intentions public. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against us after we did. The irony is that many who supported those actions against us are now defending those whose actions undermine the Party today. If Kissoon had done adequate research, this is where he would have been able to apply Koestler’s arguments. Kissoon did not do—or was not interested in—any research on this.

The important point is that Aubrey Norton was not one of the executive members who met Corbin. In fact, he argued that it was not the right time, that we should not make the man feel that he was being turfed out; that we had the Congress of 2009, by which time he would have been more amenable to leaving office. Aubrey Norton supported Robert Corbin, not Team Alexander, at the 2007 Congress of the PNCR. It boggles the mind as to where Frederick Kissoon got his claim that “As soon as he succeeded Desmond Hoyte after the latter’s death, Corbin had to contend with guerrilla warfare led by Norton, Alexander and McAllister.” It is a total fabrication intended to distort history.

Kissoon’s claim— “While McAllister migrated and Alexander resigned from the PNC, Norton carried the fight to Corbin, and it reached the High Court. It was an internecine battle that almost killed the PNC, saved only by the birth of APNU”—is also a distortion of the facts. I was suspended from the PNCR in 2008 for my participation in the Team Alexander campaign, and Vincent Alexander, in protest, did not renew his membership when it expired in 2007/8. I migrated to the United States in 2010, two years after I was suspended. Aubrey Norton’s case in the High Court had nothing to do with a challenge against Robert Corbin’s leadership but was related to other procedural matters at a lower level in the Party.

In 2009, Aubrey Norton managed Winston Murray’s campaign to unseat Corbin. This effort, while unsuccessful, was strong enough, in my view, to cause Corbin to conclude he should not contest the 2011 General and Regional Elections. As a result, we had the Presidential Primary Process that resulted in David Granger being elected Presidential Candidate for the PNCR. Before this, it was either the Congress or the General Council that made this decision.

Kissoon’s attempt to compare recent actions to what transpired in 2007 and 2009 is flawed. In fact, his argument that from 2002 to 2007 there was some internecine conflict in the PNCR is a total fabrication. Vincent Alexander was the loyal Party Chairman to Party Leader Robert Corbin during this period.
Kissoon stated that “It is unadulterated hypocrisy of McAllister to chastise Walton-Desir and others for internal fighting when McAllister and Norton almost gave Corbin a heart attack.” This is to suggest that we did what the likes of Walton-Desir, Geeta Chandan, and Daniel Seeram did. That comparison is unfounded.

I was suspended from the Party, and I sat out quietly. I never encouraged anyone to leave the Party, and all but four or five persons who were with Team Alexander continued to function in the Party. We never declared we preferred the PPP to Corbin. We never encouraged anyone to down arms and stop doing Party work, even as they continued to occupy office as elected Party officials. Instead, we quietly, in the background, provided guidance and our expertise to further the Party’s interest. And of utmost importance, we didn’t form political parties, encourage members to leave the Party, defect to the PPP, or try to undermine the foundation of the Party.

Geeta Chandan defected to the PPP, and Amanza Walton didn’t only down arms for years—she formed a political party to compete against APNU, of which the PNCR is a part. In recent days, certain known actors have been contacting PNCR members, soliciting their assistance to do political work for the preparation of their list of candidates under the guise that their party and the PNCR are working together against the PPP—while at the same time stating their intention to pull the youth vote away from the PNCR.

It is astonishing how Frederick Kissoon could conflate these two things. The actions of Norton, McAllister, and Alexander were in keeping with what is provided for in the Party’s constitution. The actions of these recent actors are self-serving efforts to promote their own interests to the detriment of the Party. Another blatant untruth is Kissoon’s assertion that Dr. David Hinds was, and is, close to me. I have met Dr. David Hinds once or twice in person, and it was just the exchange of pleasantries; we never communicated by telephone, nor do we communicate on social media. Yet Kissoon is challenging Dr. Hinds to refute that he reported a conversation he and I had.

In the final analysis, Kissoon’s column relies on a litany of fabrications used to support the baseless conclusion that my actions align with Koestler’s argument about human weaknesses and moral contradiction. In truth, it is Kissoon’s pseudo-intellectual method—abandoning evidence, logic, basic truth, and accuracy in pursuit of narrative—that best illustrates the very flaws Koestler warned about.

Thanks

James K. McAllister

---

• David Hinds, Fabricated stories, folly, Freddie Kissoon, James K. McAllister

---