A political controversy has erupted in Antigua and Barbuda after opposition leader Jamale Pringle was ordered to leave Parliament just hours before the opening of a new legislative session, despite receiving a formal summons to attend and be sworn in. The incident triggered an immediate walkout by all opposition members of parliament and senators, who left the chamber in protest of the unexpected snub to their leader.
In an interview with Observer Radio just hours after the chaotic scenes, Pringle laid out the sequence of events that led to the confrontation, calling for transparency over why parliamentary authorities blocked him from taking his oath of allegiance. He stressed that his aim is not to stoke unnecessary division among opposition lawmakers, but to unpack the confusing sequence of events that left him locked out of the official sitting.
Pringle explained that his absence from an earlier planned swearing-in session was entirely justified: he traveled out of the country with his daughter to receive urgent medical care, and submitted formal advance notification of his absence to parliamentary officials. After returning, he received a second official summons dated May 14, ordering him to attend the opening of Parliament’s first session on May 26 at 9 a.m., with an instruction to arrive 15 minutes early “for the dispatch of such business as may be necessary.”
Based on the wording of this correspondence, Pringle said he reasonably assumed the pre-session gathering would be used to administer his oath of allegiance, bringing him into formal membership of the new Parliament. He arrived at the legislative chamber at 8:25 a.m., almost 20 minutes ahead of the scheduled pre-session meeting, and took a seat that had already been set up with his name displayed. He waited in the chamber for nearly an hour before the Sergeant-at-Arms approached him and requested he leave to meet with Senate President Alincia Williams-Grant.
During that private meeting, Pringle said the Senate President informed him he could not take a seat in the chamber because he had not completed the required oath of allegiance. In response, Pringle proposed that the oath be administered publicly on the floor of Parliament, a procedural step he argued would have been quick, transparent, and fully in line with parliamentary rules. He emphasized that he holds the institution of Parliament in high regard and makes every effort to attend all scheduled sittings, noting that the oath is an extremely brief procedure that could easily have been completed before the formal Throne Speech got underway.
When asked if he believed the oversight was a deliberate attempt to embarrass the opposition and disrupt the opening of the first parliamentary session, Pringle said he believed that was likely. Adding to his confusion, he noted that parliamentary staff had already prepared a name-plated seat for him in the chamber, confirming that organizers expected his attendance. Pringle has yet to receive a clear explanation from parliamentary officials for why he was summoned if he was not going to be allowed to complete the required swearing-in process, leaving key questions about the incident unresolved.