Alliance for Change (AFC) Leader, Nigel Hughes has come under scrutiny after a woman accused him and, by extension the AFC of using her intellectual property.
The woman, Nakisha Sinclair, in a series of posts to her Facebook, accused the AFC of publishing and promoting several proposals and ideas without permission, credit, or compensation as part of the party’s election campaign.

Sinclair shared detailed screenshots of messages and call logs in which she accused Hughes and other executives of failing to credit and compensate her for work done in crafting plans for education, youth, the environment, and sport policies.

The woman also claimed to have provided speechwriting and other public relations services to Hughes.
This controversy comes after the AFC attempted to rebrand itself ahead of the September 1 polls.

“For some reason, after I submitted a draft, you went on to the redundant programme Future Forward and used my ideas that I submitted. After I pulled back and said you are not the person I thought you were, I sent a letter in March stating that you cannot use anything I submitted to you. That included the education, sports, youth, environmental plans etc. You agreed to same,” the woman wrote.
She noted further that a letter to cease and desist was sent to AFC officials.

The correspondence had allegedly first begun earlier in the year when she shared an education plan with AFC member Catherine Glasgow.
In a screenshot seen by this publication, Hughes had a more than 40-minute conversation with Sinclair. Glasgow was also present during this alleged conversation.

The woman alleges that her work was published by the AFC under their ‘Future Forward’ campaign. However, when she asked to be compensated for her work, she was lambasted with accusations of extortion.

“I asked you guys to compensate me for my work and you have the nerve to tell me I am trying to extort the Alliance For Change?,” the woman wrote.
Sinclair further called out what she believed to be ‘hypocrisy’ by Mr. Hughes, who had previously sought to publicly support another individual who claimed the government had misused their ideas.