PNM’s Centre of Excellence decision raises questions about political identity, loyalty and the price of convenience.
PNM Chairman Marvin Gonzales held a press conference accusing the UNC Government of frustrating the party’s attempts to secure suitable venues for its November 22 Annual Convention. Queen’s Hall, NAPA and SAPA were among the facilities reportedly approached. However, Queen’s Hall maintained that the requested date was already booked.
The PNM has since announced that its 51st Annual Convention will be held at Jack Warner’s Centre of Excellence in Macoya.
But what appeared to be a practical solution has reopened an uncomfortable debate about the party’s political history, its principles and the message it intends to send as it marks 70 years.
On Monday, November 9, a statement attributed to PNM MP Camille Robinson-Regis challenged the decision with a reminder: “Lest we forget!”
The Centre of Excellence was developed under former CONCACAF president and FIFA vice-president Jack Warner, using international football funding. However, ownership of the facility became the subject of a US$37.8 million lawsuit filed by CONCACAF in 2016.
CONCACAF alleges that funds intended for football development were misappropriated and that the facility was registered under companies associated with Warner and his family. Warner has denied wrongdoing.
As recently as October 2026, the parties were reportedly engaged in settlement discussions.
The question remains: how did a facility financed for regional football development come under private ownership?
Convenience versus political conviction
Some PNM supporters have defended the leadership’s decision, pointing out that the Centre of Excellence routinely accommodates business conferences, national events, exhibitions and other large gatherings.
From an operational standpoint, it offers substantial facilities, parking and accessibility.
Others argue that the PNM is not simply another organisation booking a conference hall. It is a political institution with a history, an identity and former leaders, including Patrick Manning and Dr Keith Rowley, whose public positions on Warner and political integrity deserve consideration.
For these critics, what may be acceptable for an ordinary commercial event presents a different question when the organisation involved is the PNM.
There are also concerns about internal accountability.
Sources familiar with discussions within the party claim that the General Council was not presented with a comprehensive report detailing the venues approached, correspondence exchanged or responses received before the decision became public.
One source stated categorically that “no correspondence on this issue was read to the General Council.”
Moreover, a press conference for the public is not a report to the organisation.
Those claims have not been independently established, but they raise an important governance question about how significant decisions are communicated to the party’s governing body.
A distraction or a defining moment?
Other supporters consider the controversy an unnecessary distraction from the greater task of rebuilding the PNM under Political Leader Pennelope Beckles.
Their argument is straightforward: the venue has been selected, the convention must proceed, and the organisation needs discipline, unity and mobilisation rather than another internal dispute.
But political mobilisation is not simply about gathering thousands of supporters under one roof.
Dr Mwale Henry, an Executive Leadership Advisor, examines the issue through the lens of political science, organisational identity and leadership strategy.
His central argument is that successful political mobilisation depends on restoring collective pride, strengthening institutional identity and reconnecting members with the principles that distinguish their organisation.
“To mobilize the PNM is to restore pride,” Henry argues.
He questions whether logistical convenience should take precedence over the symbolic significance of a venue, particularly when a political organisation is attempting to rebuild public confidence.
He also raises the possibility of alternative venues with greater strategic value.
Skinner Park in San Fernando, despite potential logistical challenges, could provide an opportunity to strengthen the party’s presence in southern Trinidad, particularly around San Fernando East.
Eddie Hart Savannah could similarly provide a platform for rebuilding support along the East-West Corridor, where the PNM faces its own electoral and organisational challenges.
As of news time, various event planners have agreed the aforementioned options are not necessarily easier. Both would require careful planning, cost assessments and logistical adjustments. But the political value of a venue may extend beyond its seating capacity.
Could a scaled-down convention, a different date or a more strategically located gathering have served the party’s rebuilding efforts?
These are questions worth examining rather than dismissing as disloyalty or infighting.
The bigger question
Since 1956, the PNM has built much of its political identity around national development, institutional continuity and an insistence on its own capacity to lead.
Win alone, lose alone. Look within and rebuild around uncompromising PNM values. For those who hold firmly to that political tradition, the conviction remains that the alternative to the PNM is chaos.
From the development of Point Lisas to the expansion of the natural gas economy, successive PNM administrations made decisions with consequences far beyond short-term convenience.
This does not mean that renting the Centre of Excellence amounts to an endorsement of Warner or establishes any wrongdoing by the party. Nor should allegations in an unresolved civil lawsuit be treated as findings of guilt.
But the rental raises another question: who ultimately benefits financially from the arrangement, and what does it mean for a party seeking to distinguish itself from its political opponents?
After all, on April 5, 2025, it was at the Centre of Excellence that the UNC held its rally and presentation of candidates for the 2025 General Election.
Has the PNM ever shared political space with the UNC before?
Moreover, political symbolism matters.
Article 17(4) of the PNM Constitution explicitly states:
“The Annual Convention shall be the supreme authority of the Movement.”
That authority is empowered to consider and formulate the party’s principles, policies and programmes, as well as amend its Constitution.
How can the PNM’s highest decision-making body, as established by its own Constitution, find a temporary home at Jack Warner’s Centre of Excellence while serious allegations surrounding the facility remain unresolved? Is that wise political messaging for an organisation attempting to restore public confidence?
For a party seeking to rebuild its credibility, restore its membership and reclaim the confidence of voters, the venue itself becomes part of the message.
The question is no longer simply whether Jack Warner’s Centre of Excellence is large enough to accommodate the PNM.
It is whether the Centre of Excellence is the right place to showcase PNM values and launch the next chapter of the PNM’s political resurgence.