Dr. Vivian Williams made a timely entry into the public debate on the United States Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and its applicability to PNCR groups functioning in the US. In an opinion piece published on May 24, 2024, by Demerara Waves Online News, Dr. Williams confirmed that there are no legal hurdles to PNCR groups operating in the US. This is in keeping with articulation by PNCR PR Director, Sherwood Lowe.
Dr. Williams acknowledges that the purpose of FARA is to ensure transparency and that its intent is not to prohibit activities. This position is at odds with some who argued that “under US law, no organization registered under US law can be answerable to a foreign entity, especially a political party.” This is palpably wrong, and Dr. Williams set the record straight when he said, “That law forbids individuals or entities in the United States from acting as agents of foreign principals without registering as a foreign agent and subjecting themselves to onerous reporting obligations and scrutiny by US authorities.” Dr. Williams’ concern about the “onerous reporting obligations and scrutiny” is merely an administrative issue that presents no legal hurdles to PNCR groups operating.
Notwithstanding his endorsement of the PNCR position on the issue, I do have issues with some aspects of, and the tone of, Dr. Williams’ opinion piece. Firstly, he posited that the issue is “…whether NAR should subject itself to the direction and control of the PNCR.” False! That is not the issue. The issue is whether the PNCR should accept a few people abrogating the patrimony of the Party onto themselves—a patrimony thousands of PNCR members have contributed to building since the Party’s formation in 1957. Maybe Dr. Williams is unaware, but the North American Region of the PNCR is not a new entity. Many PNCR stalwarts, including former Party Leader Robert Corbin and my dear friend, Eustace Hall (God rest his soul), made significant contributions to the establishment and growth of NAR. The people now in charge of NAR Inc. inherited the control of NAR as a purely PNCR organization.
Dr. Williams acknowledged the PNCR’s commendable step in setting up a committee to review the issue when the long-dormant FARA became active. However, his assertion that the PNCR process was flawed because it did not consult “experts from all the jurisdictions that are implicated in the transactions” is wrong. One PNCR executive member, in a statement distancing herself from the PNCR decision, revealed that PNCR Leader Aubrey C. Norton reported he consulted competent legal authority in the jurisdiction in question.
Another issue with Dr. Williams’ opinion is that he is presuming unstated intent behind the PNCR decision to reject the attempts of a few to abrogate the patrimony of the Party. When the Central Executive Committee of the PNCR appointed a new committee to manage its North American Region, it did not state there were any limitations imposed on the committee. In fact, Derrick Lawrence, the chairman of the PNCR North American Region interim committee, stated publicly that the committee will observe all relevant US laws. However, two-thirds of Dr. Williams’ opinion piece was dedicated to the jeopardies of an unincorporated entity operating as the agent of a foreign political party, in this case, the PNCR. While this is good advice, it is moot because just as the current NAR Inc. was able to incorporate itself, the Derrick Lawrence-led committee is able to incorporate itself.
The entire tone of Dr. Williams’ opinion is based on two false premises: namely, that no legal advice was sought and that the Derrick Lawrence-led committee will be unincorporated. Removing these two premises and all that flowed from them, then the only thing left standing is Dr. Williams’ confirmation that there are no legal hurdles to PNCR groups operating in the US once the requirements of US laws are adhered to.