Former PAM Chairman Criticizes Party Leadership’s Handling of Constituency Four Chairmanship.

The political landscape of St. Kitts and Nevis has been dramatically shaken by a blistering critique of the People’s Action Movement (PAM) delivered by former party chairman, Selwyn ‘Rusty’ Liburd. His explosive remarks, aired during a live call-in to the popular radio show UNFILTERED, hosted by Azard Gumbs with PAM leader Natasha Grey-Brookes as a guest, have exposed deep fissures within the party and ignited calls for urgent reform. Liburd’s intervention, characterized by raw emotion and candid accusations, has laid bare long-simmering discontent amongst the party faithful, raising questions about PAM’s future direction and its ability to unify in the face of internal strife.

Central to Liburd’s searing indictment of the party leadership was the controversial dismissal of Azard Gumbs as Chairman of Constituency #4. Liburd questioned the rationale behind the move, arguing that it contradicted the party’s established principles. This act, he contended, was symptomatic of a broader pattern of marginalization within PAM, where grassroots members were being systematically sidelined in favor of those perceived to be from more privileged backgrounds. This perceived elitism, Liburd argued, is driving a wedge between the party’s leadership and its core supporters, eroding the very foundation upon which PAM was built.

Beyond Gumbs’s dismissal, Liburd’s critique extended to the overall inertia of the party leadership, excluding its current leader Natasha Grey-Brookes. He lamented the lack of visible action and engagement from party officials, portraying a picture of a party adrift and failing to connect with the electorate. He singled out Grey-Brookes as the sole voice advocating for PAM in the public sphere, praising her visibility on social media and radio while implicitly criticizing the silence of other party leaders. This stark contrast further underscored Liburd’s concerns about the party’s direction and the seeming disconnect between the leadership and its base.

Liburd’s observations on the party’s struggles resonate with a sense of profound disillusionment. His poignant lament – “It hurts me a lot to see my own party struggling to get some votes” – reflects the anguish of a loyal supporter witnessing the decline of an organization he clearly cares deeply about. His public airing of these grievances suggests a desperate plea for change, a call for the party to return to its core values and reconnect with the grassroots supporters who have long been its backbone. The raw emotion in his voice conveyed not just disappointment, but also a sense of betrayal. He felt the party was turning its back on individuals like himself, individuals who he believed represented the true spirit of PAM.

The timing of Liburd’s intervention, during a live broadcast with the party leader present, amplified the impact of his words. This was not a private conversation behind closed doors; it was a public declaration of dissent, a direct challenge to the party’s leadership to address the issues he raised. The choice of platform ensured maximum exposure and guaranteed that his message would reach not only the party faithful but also the wider electorate. This bold move suggests that Liburd felt compelled to speak out, driven by a sense of urgency and a belief that the party’s future was at stake. His decision to air his concerns so publicly speaks volumes about the depth of his frustration and his commitment to seeing PAM revitalized.

The fallout from Liburd’s explosive remarks has been swift and dramatic. His comments have reverberated across the political landscape of St. Kitts and Nevis, triggering a wave of debate and speculation about the future of PAM. Many within the party view his intervention as a much-needed wake-up call, a catalyst for the internal reforms required to revitalize the party and restore its relevance. Others, however, may see it as a damaging act of disloyalty, potentially exacerbating existing divisions and undermining the party’s efforts to present a united front. The coming days and weeks will be crucial for PAM. The leadership must now decide how to respond to Liburd’s critique. Will they heed his call for greater inclusivity and transparency, or will they dismiss his concerns and risk further alienating their base? The party’s response will determine whether Liburd’s intervention serves as a turning point or a final nail in the coffin. The stakes are high, and the future of PAM hangs in the balance.