Dear Editor,
I generally refrain from engaging in the internal affairs of the People’s National Movement (PNM), except where such matters intersect with its constitutional role as the Opposition within the framework of the Westminster system of governance. However, I recently encountered a public statement by Ms. Camille Robinson-Regis which warrants critical examination and response.
In her facebook commentary involving the internal controversy surrounding Dr. Rowley’s claims that he was not invited to the party’s 70th anniversary celebration, despite the party producing evidence to the contrary, she made a poor attempt to defend him by stating “Dr.Rowley is not a man to be careless with the truth”.
Ms. Robinson-Regis was unreserved in admonishing her colleagues, at the same time, advancing strong assertions regarding the character and credibility of former Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley. These assertions, in my view, require careful scrutiny.
Any objective assessment of leadership must be grounded in a willingness to interrogate evidence with intellectual honesty rather than partisan loyalty.
If one were to evaluate Dr. Rowley’s public record through the lens of credibility and consistency, it would be difficult to accept uncritically the portrayal of exemplary character presented by Ms. Robinson-Regis.
Historical instances raise legitimate questions. Among these is the controversy commonly referred to as “emailgate.” It’s difficult to accept that Ms Regis overlooked the fabrication of fake emails and the lies surrounding the entire scandal. how could she have forgotten the public assurances preceding the closure of Petrotrin; which was ultimately dissolved in 2018.
At a public meeting in Marabella, Dr. Rowley declared “the government is not closing down Petrotrin”. Subsequent statements by then chairman Wilfred Espinet who indicated that all employees were going home, contradicted Dr. Rowley.
Additionally, unresolved questions remain outstanding regarding the truth surrounding the visit of Venezuela’s Vice President and officials from a Sanctioned oil company during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the widely publicized incident involving his alleged detention at the Antigua airport, for which no substantiated evidence of placement on any international watchlist was ultimately produced. Neither was there any evidence to support his claims of involvement by local authorities.
These examples are not raised in isolation, but rather as part of a broader pattern of behaviour that raises public concern. Repetition of contested or misleading claims, when not substantiated, erodes public trust and confidence in leadership. To contend that Dr. Rowley is not a man to be careless with the truth is historically flawed.
Ms. Robinson-Regis further contends that “the matter at hand extends beyond the issue of an invitation and speaks to the treatment of those who have contributed to building the party”. While it is reasonable to acknowledge the contributions of political figures, it is equally important to assess their legacy with balance.
There are compelling arguments that leadership decisions (too much to mention) and actions by Dr. Rowley have, in fact, contributed to reputational challenges for the PNM, an institution historically regarded as one of the most enduring political organizations in the Caribbean. prominent pnm stalwarts, including Ferdie Ferreira have publicly expressed criticism of decisions taken by Dr. Rowley.
The legacy of earlier leaders such as Dr. Eric Williams and his successors, though not without controversy, is often associated with foundational nation-building efforts.
The present juncture therefore invites critical reflection on whether the leadership of Dr Rowley aligns with, or departs from those foundational principles. A careful and considered examination of his stewardship suggests the latter.
In closing, it is important to emphasize that public discourse by political representatives is not confined to partisan audiences; it is directed toward the citizenry as a whole. As such, Ms. Regis should know that it demands a level of responsibility, accuracy, and respect for the intelligence of the national community.
While I make no definitive assertion regarding the veracity of Dr. Rowley’s claims of not receiving an invite, any assessment grounded in historical precedent would understandably give rise to skepticism.
Lyndon De Gannes
Arima
