NEWS of the recent defections of high-ranking members of the Alliance

For Change (AFC) party must have left its supporters in severe shock, given the personalities and their numbers involved.
For a party that had espoused the highest idealisms, such as integrity, political morality and rectitude, thereby promising a new approach to politics, such an event has to be depressing, almost sounding like a political death knell, especially given the party’s growth and appeal to a cross section of the Guyanese society since it came onto the political scene, sometime before the 2006 elections.
Of course, all political parties do have their internal quarrels, for it must be borne in mind  that since their  memberships are from varying backgrounds, the latter will  inevitably bring to the political table differing perspectives, beliefs, goals, and objectives – and this is despite subscribing to the primary beliefs of the particular party. What is of essence at such times of serious dissension is the consensus factor, the ability to arrive at common positions, even if revised.
But this could  be done only if the issues are not ones that will compromise the party’s core principles, and are embraced by the majority. This is precisely what has happened, and is happening within the AFC, with dire consequences.
It is very difficult to comprehend a party that promised so much – a new kind of political morality, to observe some of its most prominent members, its standard bearers to be more specific, becoming tarnished with serious ethical violations.
Beginning with Mr. Moses Nagamootoo, who led himself out of a party that nurtured his political growth and development, to the point where he became cabinet minister in its 1992 administration. This gentleman, now a member of the AFC, crusaded on the well worn-out accusation of corruption, principally directed against the National Industrial & Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL).
In fact, he was among his party’s chief chorus leaders who lambasted the nation’s Privatisation Unit, only for him to be exposed as having been retained as one of this important institution’s attorneys!
It was indeed a shocker, for it was clearly a conflict of interest, of which his party and executive would have been fully aware. How duplicitous it was for him to criticise an institution’s manner of conducting the state’s business, the very institution on whose behalf he functioned legally!
But the dust, rather  than being settled on this  most contradictory of cases, blew up again recently, exposing two other damning issues – one, a conflict of interest, and the other, a most serious case of ethical and moral violations, that has thrown egg full into the face of prominent attorney Mr. Nigel Hughes, who is also chairman of the AFC.

Hughes, it was publicly declared,  had been Sithe Global’s company Secretary since 2009, without the full knowledge of his party, that had led  a bitter and open  attack on the Amaila Falls Hydro Project. Add this to the even further sensational issue of this party’s executive, also an attorney, failing to disclose that the foreman of a jury in an important murder trial, in which he was a defence counsel, had been his prior client.
These two issues, more than any other, relating to the AFC, resulted in severe public criticisms of principally Hughes, but also took the party to task for what it perceived to have been serious issues of conflict of interest in both examples illustrated.
One could have understood the outrage felt over these two very   serious conflict-of-interest cases, especially committed by a very senior leader of a party that was launched on a platform of high moral rectitude, and which continuous public pronouncements of a vitriol type, condemned almost every perceived social ill.
Yet, party leader Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan failed to even issue a public reprimand of  his chairman. In fact, he ought to have accepted his resignation readily, over the Sithe Global disclosure. Instead, he offered what can be described as a lame duck excuse of Hughes having the right to represent a client. How could this have been possible, when this attorney represented a client which business concern was the sustained focus of vehement criticism from his political party?
But even Ramjattan acknowledged the damage, that such incident would hurt the AFC, again acknowledging this when he spoke on the recent exodus from his movement.  Definitely, this is an implosion that has taken place within the AFC’s political hallway, setting in train a seeming rebellion by senior members who have mutinied against the open double standards unashamedly perpetrated by some members whose conduct has betrayed what their entire party claims to uphold.
Who would have thought such a scenario possible, emanating from a party that prosecuted allegations of corruption against the state?  Now, those very members who have quitted did so, levelling the same charges against their party.
The AFC leadership must now defend itself and party against these allegations. They owe their constituents a proper, credible explanation.