In a landmark ruling with profound implications for political discourse, the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court has delivered a powerful judgment in Frederick v. Chastanet [2025], establishing stringent legal boundaries for political speech. The case centered on allegations made by former Prime Minister Allen Chastanet against sitting minister Richard Frederick, whom he accused of corruption, dishonesty, and abuse of office in a widely circulated Facebook video.
The court meticulously applied Saint Lucia’s defamation framework, incorporating the UK Defamation Act 2013 through Article 917A of the Civil Code. Justice Pariagsingh’s ruling emphasized that while robust political debate is essential to democracy, allegations of criminal conduct must be substantiated with evidence rather than presented as rhetorical weapons.
Critical to the case was the failure of Chastanet’s defenses of truth, honest opinion, and public interest. Testimony from key witnesses, including Stephenson King and managing directors of SLASPA and NHC—all appointed during Chastanet’s own administration—systematically dismantled the factual basis for the allegations. Records revealed no objection to the land sale in question, no existing plans for a marine police base on the property, and full compliance with established board processes.
The judgment particularly scrutinized the casual deployment of the term ‘corruption’ in political rhetoric. The court noted that such language carries specific legal connotations of misuse of office, abuse of public trust, and improper enrichment—not merely colorful criticism. By using these terms without evidence, politicians risk eroding public trust and discouraging honest individuals from public service.
Regarding serious harm, the court considered both the significant reach of the Facebook video and the gravity of allegations against a sitting minister. The ruling distinguished between the ‘court of public opinion,’ where unsubstantiated claims may circulate freely, and the legal system where words carry precise consequences.
The court awarded $60,000 in damages to Frederick, noting that while no financial loss was demonstrated, the allegations caused significant humiliation and embarrassment. Aggravating factors included Chastanet’s refusal to apologize, persistence in unsubstantiated claims, and conduct during litigation.
Beyond the immediate case, the judgment raises crucial questions about democratic accountability. It challenges citizens, institutions, and media to move beyond passive consumption of political rhetoric and actively demand evidence for serious allegations. The ruling suggests that effective democracy requires continuous citizen engagement through mechanisms like freedom of information requests, parliamentary petitions, and rigorous media scrutiny—not merely electoral participation every five years.
This decision establishes an important precedent for Caribbean jurisprudence, signaling that the judiciary will hold politicians accountable for unfounded allegations that damage reputations and undermine governance.