Three former senior figures in the Alliance For Change (AFC), now aligned with A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), are threatening legal action against the party over what they describe as an unconstitutional expulsion. Members of Parliament Juretha Fernandes, Deonarine Ramsaroop, and Sherod Duncan reportedly issued a letter to the AFC executive demanding the immediate retraction of their removals, including that of fellow member Kenny Valadares.
“Guided by the AFC’s Constitution, we demand the immediate retraction of our expulsions, including Mr. Valadares’. Failing to do so will result in our taking legal action,” the letter stated. According to them, Valadares was pushed out for raising legitimate concerns about the party’s internal operations.
Tensions have been rising since APNU confirmed Fernandes as its presumptive Prime Ministerial candidate for the upcoming elections—unless she opts to withdraw.
Responding to the claims, AFC General Secretary Raphael Trotman dismissed the accusation of expulsion. “They were never expelled,” he told Demerara Waves Online News. “They voluntarily separated themselves from the party by signing on as candidates for another political organization without informing the AFC.” Trotman maintained that this act amounted to forfeiture of membership under party rules.
“They are free to take the matter to court,” he added, suggesting that such a case could provide useful legal clarity for many organizations. “We were disappointed they gave no notice, but we respect their decision and we’ve moved on.”
Fernandes, Ramsaroop, and Duncan, who currently remain parliamentarians under the APNU+AFC banner, argue that their removal violates Article 5(7) of the AFC Constitution. That provision states that members who accept affiliation with another party must be given one month to choose between the two. The trio contends that not only was this clause ignored, but that the authority to expel resides solely with the National Executive Committee (NEC)—a body they claim was sidelined in the decision-making process.
“Even if it is somehow misinterpreted that we had joined another party,” they wrote, “the Constitution clearly provides us a one-month window to respond. That was never honoured.”
They also dispute the AFC’s labeling of them as “former members,” insisting they never resigned and continue to be fully paid-up members of the party. “The AFC leadership is fully aware of our many internal and public statements reaffirming our commitment to the party,” the letter said.
In an upcoming broadcast of Caribbean Tea on June 22, AFC Leader Nigel Hughes is expected to address the issue, stating that the group actively worked to undermine his leadership from the outset. While they were co-opted onto the party’s executive, Hughes claims they “very, very rarely” attended meetings or contributed meaningfully to internal governance.
In addition to this fresh wave of internal discord, the AFC is also facing an uphill battle in its attempt to forge a new coalition agreement with APNU. Coalition talks between the two parties have recently collapsed, further weakening efforts to mount a united opposition against the governing People’s Progressive Party (PPP).
As tensions simmer both within and between parties, many across Guyanese society are expressing hope that the AFC and APNU can find common ground. With Elections looming on September 1, 2025, the public desire for a strong, united opposition remains high—and so does the pressure on opposition leaders to rise above personal and political rifts in pursuit of the national interest.
