The PNM Is On Trial Politically And Constitutionally
I have been a member of the People's National Movement for 30 years.
I have served this institution on the Diego Martin North/East Executive on the National Executive as Youth Officer Male, as a member of the General Council and as a member of the Central Executive.
I say that not to claim any special authority but to establish where I am coming from.
I am not writing as an outsider looking into the PNM.
I am writing as a PNM member looking into the PNM.
And sometimes loyalty to an institution requires the courage to ask difficult questions.
This is one of those moments.
The issue is the 6th May 2025 election of Dr Nyan Gadsby-Dolly as Chairman of the People's National Movement.
This should not be reduced to personalities.
It should not be reduced to factions.
And it should not be reduced to who supports whom.
There is a more fundamental question
Was that election conducted in accordance with the Constitution of the PNM?
That question deserves an answer.
Not a political answer.
A constitutional one.
START WITH THE CONSTITUTION
Article 12 of the PNM Constitution establishes the General Council as the governing body of the PNM and gives it responsibility for the affairs and administration of the institution.
But Article 23 is even more important to this discussion.
It expressly gives the General Council authority to determine matters where the Constitution, Standing Orders, rules or regulations are silent or where ambiguity or difficulty of interpretation arises.
In other words, the Constitution itself anticipates that constitutional questions will arise.
And it identifies the institution that must deal with them.
The General Council.
So why should the General Council not pronounce on this question?
Why should an issue concerning the constitutional composition of the very body that elected the Chairman remain unresolved?
If the Constitution provides a mechanism for interpretation use it.
The Constitution sets the rules.
The General Council interprets them.
The institution must abide by the determination.
That is how a constitutional institution is supposed to function.
ARTICLE 14 IS THE STARTING POINT
Article 14 establishes the Legislative Group.
Its membership is constitutionally defined.
It comprises persons occupying specified representative positions in Parliament, the Tobago House of Assembly and local government together with the other categories expressly identified by the Constitution.
That distinction matters.
Because membership of the Legislative Group is not simply a reward for having once held public office.
It is a constitutional status.
You must satisfy the qualification.
You must occupy the relevant position.
And when that qualifying status ends the Constitution determines whether the membership continues.
Article 14(2)(b) is particularly important because it expressly provides that a person approved as a PNM candidate automatically ceases to be a member of the Legislative Group if defeated in an election.
The constitutional principle is therefore straightforward
Qualification comes first.
Representation comes second.
Voting comes third.
The representation flows from the qualification.
The qualification does not flow from the representation.
Dr Amery Browne
Consider Dr Amery Browne.
He was elected by the Legislative Group as its Upper House representative to the General Council.
But Parliament was dissolved on 28th April 2025.
The election for Chairman occurred on 6th May 2025.
Dr Browne was therefore no longer a Senator during the period between the dissolution of Parliament and his subsequent appointment to the Senate.
The question is not whether Dr Browne had previously been a Senator.
He had.
The question is
What was his constitutional status on 6th May 2025?
If he was no longer a parliamentarian, what constitutional provision allowed him to remain a member of the Legislative Group?
If he remained a member of the Legislative Group where does the Constitution say so?
And if he remained the Legislative Group's representative on the General Council what provision preserved that representation?
Show us the Article.
Not the convention.
Not the explanation.
Not what somebody believes has always happened.
Show us the constitutional provision.
And there is a hypothetical that demonstrates why this question cannot simply be dismissed.
Had Stuart Young SC when becoming Prime Minister chosen not to reappoint Dr Browne as Minister of Foreign Affairs and not to appoint him to the Senate would Dr Browne nevertheless have remained the Legislative Group's representative on the General Council?
If the answer is yes, what is the constitutional basis?
If the answer is no then what changed his status?
The Constitution should answer that question.
AND THEN THERE IS ROGER MONROE
The Roger Monroe issue is even more complicated because it presents two separate constitutional questions.
First
Was he properly elected to the General Council as the Lower House representative of the Legislative Group?
Second
Even if he was was he still constitutionally qualified to occupy that position after losing his parliamentary seat on 28th April 2025?
The first question must not be skipped.
The public record has identified the late Lisa Morris-Julian as the elected Legislative Group representative for the Lower House.
If that is correct her death created a vacancy.
So when did the Legislative Group elect Roger Monroe to replace her?
When was that election held?
Who called it?
Who participated?
What was the result?
Where are the minutes?
Where is the notice?
Where is the record?
If the PNM says Roger Monroe was properly elected to replace Lisa Morris-Julian then the evidence should be produced.
Show us the Article.
Show us the election.
Show us the record.
This is not an unreasonable demand.
It is the minimum one should expect from a 70 year old constitutional institution dealing with the legitimacy of its own governing body.
Because parliamentary membership and General Council representation are not automatically the same thing.
Being an MP is one thing.
Being elected as a General Council representative is another.
Being entitled to vote in the Chairman's election is another.
Each requires a constitutional basis.
THEN CAME 28th APRIL
Now consider the sequence.
Lisa Morris-Julian was the elected Lower House representative, according to the contemporaneous account.
She died.
A vacancy therefore arose.
If Roger Monroe was elected to fill that vacancy produce the record.
Then came 28th April 2025.
The PNM lost the general election.
Roger Monroe lost his parliamentary seat.
And Article 14(2)(b) expressly states that a person approved as a PNM candidate automatically ceases to be a member of the Legislative Group if defeated in an election.
Then came 6th May.
The General Council elected its Chairman.
And Roger Monroe participated.
So the questions become unavoidable
Was he qualified?
Was he elected?
Was he entitled to vote?
Three questions.
One constitutional framework.
And the PNM must answer all three.
ARTICLE 20 THE RIGHT TO VOTE
Article 20 establishes the voting arrangements within the PNM including the entitlement to vote and the requirement that elections at all levels be conducted by secret ballot.
But the secret ballot answers only one question
How is the vote conducted?
It does not answer
Who is entitled to vote?
A secret ballot protects the choice of an eligible voter.
It does not make an ineligible person eligible.
That distinction is central.
Because the question is not whom Dr Browne and Mr Monroe voted for.
Their votes could have gone to Dr Gadsby-Dolly.
They could have gone to Mayor Chinua Alleyne.
They could have been spoiled.
It does not matter.
The constitutional question comes first
Were they entitled to participate?
Eligibility comes before preference.
The right to participate comes before the choice made with that participation.
And when the reported result was 60 votes to 58 with four spoiled ballots, the presence of two persons whose constitutional eligibility is being questioned cannot simply be dismissed as a technicality.
Two votes separated the candidates.
That makes the question worthy of examination.
But more importantly even if the margin had been twenty votes the constitutional question would remain.
Because the integrity of an election is not determined solely by whether an allegedly ineligible participant's vote changed the arithmetic.
REPRESENTATION HAS CONSEQUENCES
There is another issue.
A General Council representative represents a particular constitutional body.
The Constituency Groups have representatives.
The Women's League has representation.
The Youth League has representation.
The Tobago Council has representation.
The Legislative Group has representation.
That representation carries responsibility.
A representative is expected to report through the structure from which the representative's authority derives.
So ask the simplest question
If you are no longer a member of the Legislative Group, how do you continue to represent the Legislative Group?
To whom do you report?
Who recognises you as a member?
What constitutional provision allows you to continue?
These are not personal questions.
They are institutional questions.
And they deserve institutional answers.
THOSE WHO PRESIDED MUST HELP BRING FINALITY
The 6th May election was presided over by then Lady Vice Chairman Camille Robinson-Regis alongside then General Secretary Foster Cummings.
I am not accusing either person of wrongdoing.
But they were senior officers presiding over one of the most consequential elections in the institution.
They are therefore uniquely positioned to assist in establishing what occurred.
What was the composition of the General Council that day?
On what basis were the participants recognised?
What was the status of Dr Browne?
What was the status of Mr Monroe?
Was Monroe elected to replace Lisa Morris-Julian?
If so, when?
Where is the record?
The responsibility now is not to defend personalities.
It is to establish facts.
Clarity.
Accountability.
Finality.
After fifteen months the membership should not still be asking questions that can be answered by the Constitution and the institution's own records.
If everything was proper demonstrate it.
If there was a misunderstanding, clarify it.
If there was an error acknowledge it.
The institution owes its membership an answer.
Not another silence.
An answer.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT DR. GADSBY-DOLLY
Let me be clear.
This is not an argument against Dr Nyan Gadsby-Dolly.
It is not an argument for Mayor Chinua Alleyne.
It is not an argument about personalities.
It is an argument about the integrity of the process.
If the General Council determines that everything was constitutionally proper then say so.
If it determines that there was an irregularity, then it must determine the appropriate constitutional remedy.
That is precisely why Article 23 exists.
The General Council has the constitutional authority to pronounce on matters requiring interpretation.
So let it pronounce.
THE POLITICAL MIRROR
There is an unavoidable irony.
PNM Chairman Marvin Gonzales has been publicly asking serious constitutional questions concerning the absence of Commissioner of Police Allister Guevarro and whether the constitutional procedure governing that absence was followed.
That is legitimate.
An Opposition party should ask questions when it believes constitutional procedure may not have been followed.
It should demand answers.
It should demand accountability.
But the same principle must apply internally.
If constitutional procedure matters to the Government it must matter to the PNM.
If accountability matters in public office, it must matter inside the PNM.
If the Constitution matters to Trinidad and Tobago it must matter inside the institution defending it.
We cannot demand constitutional accountability from the Government, constitutional discipline from public institutions and constitutional obedience from the country while refusing to demand those same standards from ourselves.
What we ask of the Government we must practise in the PNM.
What we demand from public institutions we must demand from our own institution.
What we expect of Trinidad and Tobago, we must first demonstrate ourselves.
Look outward.
Look inward.
Look in the mirror.
THE PNM IS ON TRIAL
This is where my 30 years in the PNM matter.
I have seen this political institution at its strongest.
I have seen it at its lowest.
I have seen it in Government.
I have seen it in Opposition.
I have seen people sacrifice for it.
And I have learned that an institution is only as strong as the principles it is prepared to defend when those principles become inconvenient.
That is why I believe the PNM is now on trial.
Politically.
Constitutionally.
Institutionally.
Not in a court of law.
But before its membership.
Before its own constitutional structures.
And ultimately, before the people of Trinidad and Tobago.
The PNM cannot credibly ask Trinidad and Tobago to trust it to defend constitutional government if its own members cannot trust it to enforce the Constitution governing the PNM.
This is not about reopening old wounds.
It is about closing an unanswered constitutional question.
Fifteen months have passed.
But time does not rewrite a Constitution.
LET THE GENERAL COUNCIL SPEAK
I am not asking the General Council to target anyone.
I am asking it to do its constitutional duty.
Examine the Constitution.
Examine the facts.
Make a determination.
If there was no error say so.
If there was an error admit it.
And if there was an error, have the courage to correct it.
That is not weakness.
That is strength.
That is not factionalism.
That is constitutionalism.
That is not disloyalty.
That is loyalty to the institution.
The PNM is demanding constitutional accountability from the Government.
It must now demonstrate constitutional accountability within itself.
Because credibility does not begin with what we demand from others.
It begins with what we are prepared to demand from ourselves.
The Constitution must prevail.
And if the PNM is serious about restoring its credibility with the people of Trinidad and Tobago, then that restoration must begin here.
With the Constitution.
With accountability.
With courage.
The question is not whether anyone should be protected.
The question is whether the Constitution should be protected.
There can only be one answer.
Yes.
Because the PNM is not merely asking Trinidad and Tobago to judge the Government.
The PNM is on trial politically and constitutionally.
And the first institution it must examine is itself. I'm just reminding