Carib Scope

分类： politics

  • Marabella tenants win appeal in $3m flooding damage case

    Marabella tenants win appeal in $3m flooding damage case

    In a landmark split decision that reshapes landlord-tenant liability rules across Trinidad, the Court of Appeal has handed down a pivotal ruling that reverses a prior High Court judgment, opening the door for two affected commercial tenants to secure millions in compensation for property damage caused by an unforeseen plumbing failure.

    The legal dispute traces back to a 2018 flooding event at Marabella’s Allum’s Shopping Centre. A PVC angle valve connected to an upper-level unit’s kitchen sink, leased by local firm O.T.I. Trinidad Ltd, unexpectedly failed. The resulting leak seeped downward into five ground-floor commercial suites, two of which are operated by Western Industrial Solutions Ltd and entrepreneur Debera Rampersad, who runs the retail outlet Debera Fashion Step Up and Save. The damaged inventory and forced business interruptions pushed the two affected tenants to claim more than TT$3 million in total losses.

    When the case first went to trial, High Court Justice Avason Quinlan-Williams dismissed the claims against the property owner, J.T. Allum and Company Ltd. The trial judge ruled that commercial landlords cannot be held responsible for sudden plumbing failures that occur within spaces exclusively controlled and occupied by their tenants, clearing the company of any legal obligation to compensate the businesses for their losses.

    But the appellate court, a three-judge panel led by Chief Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh alongside Justices of Appeal Nolan Bereaux and James Aboud, rejected this lower-court interpretation of property law. In a 2-1 majority decision delivered Wednesday, the panel found that even though the landlord was not found to be negligent in causing the pipe failure, it still bears legal responsibility for the resulting damage under the law of private nuisance.

    Writing the lead judgment for the majority, Justice Bereaux — whose reasoning was backed by Chief Justice Boodoosingh — explained that the critical factor establishing liability is the landlord’s reserved right under all commercial leases for the property to enter tenant-occupied spaces to conduct inspections and complete necessary repairs. This retained right, the justice argued, is sufficient to uphold a nuisance claim against the property owner. He further noted that the landlord had previously argued in separate legal proceedings against the upper-floor tenant that the site’s plumbing was already in a state of disrepair, meaning the company cannot now claim the hidden defect was unidentifiable through reasonable inspection.

    Justice Bereaux also clarified a longstanding point of nuisance law: when a landlord explicitly retains the right to conduct repairs on a property, they can be held liable for damage caused to third parties even if they had no direct, actual knowledge of the hazardous defect before the incident occurred.

    Justice Aboud issued a dissent, arguing the appeal should have been thrown out. He characterized the pipe failure as an isolated, entirely unforeseeable event: the 10-year-old pipe joint had failed suddenly with no warning signs, and this does not meet the legal standard for a private nuisance. He also cautioned that the majority’s legal reasoning could impose an unfair and unreasonable burden on commercial landlords across the country, forcing them to conduct exhaustive searches for hidden defects in spaces fully occupied and controlled by their tenants.

    On the separate claim of negligence brought by the tenants, the appellate court was unanimous. The full panel agreed to dismiss the negligence claim, as no evidence presented during the trial linked the landlord’s actions or inactions to the pipe failure itself. The court also upheld the trial judge’s ruling to exclude proposed testimony from former landlord employee Vedesh Gopaul, finding his statements about the original plumbing installation were not relevant to the core legal questions in the case.

    The matter will now return to the High Court, where a Master will assess and determine the final amount of damages to be awarded to the two successful appellants. The appellate court also left in place an earlier unrelated order requiring Rampersad to settle all outstanding back rent owed to the property owner, which has no connection to the 2018 flooding incident. Attorneys Chanka Persadsingh and Anand Rampersad represented the two affected tenants, while Shankar Bidaisee, instructed by Rachael Jaggernauth, appeared on behalf of the landlord.

  • Student Named UK High Commissioner for a Day

    Student Named UK High Commissioner for a Day

    In a unique opportunity that bridges youth leadership development and international diplomacy, a young Belizean student has gained unprecedented hands-on experience in diplomatic operations after being selected for a signature outreach programme run by the British High Commission based in Belize.

    Nineteen-year-old Chloé Martinez earned the title of High Commissioner for a Day 2026, beating dozens of other applicants in a rigorous competitive selection process. Judges ultimately selected Martinez for her clear, forward-thinking policy vision, long-standing track record of local community engagement, and unwavering dedication to building inclusive, accessible leadership structures that lift up marginalized groups.

    During her one-day appointment, Martinez shadowed incumbent UK High Commissioner to Belize Alistair White, taking a seat at closed-door official meetings, sitting in on bilateral coordination discussions, and gaining first-hand insight into the quiet, behind-the-scenes work that drives successful diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Belize. The experience let Martinez move beyond the textbook understandings of diplomacy she had learned in the classroom, and see how negotiation, relationship-building, and cultural awareness shape daily diplomatic work.

    The programme wrapped up with a public Women’s Networking Event, which drew cross-sector attendees from Belize’s national government, private business sector, local civil society organizations, and the wider diplomatic corps based in the country. The interactive gathering centered on three core goals: expanding access to mentorship opportunities for emerging women leaders, growing female representation in senior decision-making roles, and strengthening intergenerational support networks that connect established women leaders with young people just starting their careers.

    In comments following the event, High Commissioner White emphasized that immersive programmes like High Commissioner for a Day fill a critical gap in youth development. He noted that the initiative is intentionally designed to give young women the practical, on-the-ground experience and built confidence they need to pursue senior leadership and decision-making roles across all sectors, both within Belize and internationally.

    Following Martinez’s selection, the British High Commission issued an official statement congratulating her on the achievement, and extended gratitude to all local and institutional partners that made the 2026 iteration of the programme possible. The statement reaffirmed the British government’s long-term commitment to supporting and empowering the next generation of women leaders across Belize, through targeted development initiatives and leadership programming.

  • COMMENTARY: A Pin, a Principle, and the Integrity of the Caribbean

    COMMENTARY: A Pin, a Principle, and the Integrity of the Caribbean

    In the delicate landscape of global diplomacy, even minor symbolic gestures can expose deep divides over core international principles. The recent uproar over an official Caribbean diplomatic engagement, where a Venezuelan official wore a lapel brooch depicting Guyana’s Essequibo region as Venezuelan territory, stands as a perfect example of this dynamic.

    Critics who brush off this incident as an overblown reaction to a trivial piece of personal clothing miss the point entirely. Dismissing the controversy as mere hypersensitivity to personal attire is not just inaccurate—it deliberately misframes what is at stake here. This is not a debate over fashion; it is a debate over official state conduct.

    When a sitting senior government official wears a territorial claim symbol during an official diplomatic meeting with a third party in a dispute over that land, the act stops being personal expression and becomes an explicit tool of state policy. The gesture is deliberately crafted to communicate, entrench, and normalize a disputed territorial position that is currently the subject of formal international legal proceedings.

    This border dispute between Venezuela and Guyana is far from a theoretical disagreement. Guyana has already brought the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), seeking a final, legally binding ruling on the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award that established the current international border between the two nations.

    Venezuela has framed its claim as rooted in international law and the 1966 Geneva Agreement, but this narrative demands closer inspection. The Geneva Agreement never settled the question of sovereignty over Essequibo, nor did it invalidate the 1899 border award. What it did do was create a framework for peaceful negotiation of the dispute, which ultimately led to the case being referred to the ICJ for adjudication. There is no legal basis for Venezuela to claim the agreement justifies unilateral assertions of territorial ownership while the court is actively considering the matter.

    This contradiction is impossible to ignore: Venezuela claims it upholds international law, yet its actions are clearly designed to shape global public opinion on a case that is currently sub judice—meaning under judicial consideration. No state can credibly claim to submit a dispute to binding international adjudication while simultaneously working outside the courtroom through symbols, legislation, and administrative moves to lock in the outcome it favors.

    The lapel brooch incident is far from an isolated misstep. It fits into a broader pattern of Venezuelan actions: national legislation that purports to annex the Essequibo region, the appointment of unofficial administrative officials to the territory, and a sustained public campaign asserting Venezuelan sovereign ownership. Taken together, these moves show no willingness to exercise restraint while the court rules. Instead, they represent a parallel political campaign to consolidate Venezuela’s claim through non-legal means.

    Against this backdrop, the recent statement from the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) carries outsized importance. Released on April 28, 2026, the CARICOM statement was measured in tone but unmistakeable in its message. It reaffirmed that CARICOM member states retain the right to conduct their own bilateral relations with outside nations, but framed that right within the boundaries of collective obligations laid out in the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. Most critically, it emphasized that CARICOM regional platforms cannot be used, either directly or indirectly, to advance or legitimize territorial claims that are currently before the ICJ.

    This position is a quiet but firm assertion of regional rules-based discipline, even at a time when critics point to growing disunity within the Caribbean integration movement. The CARICOM statement accomplishes three key goals: it protects the integrity of the international judicial process, preserves the overall unity of the regional bloc, and makes clear that while CARICOM will not interfere in individual member states’ bilateral ties, it will not allow its own forums to be used to advance a territorial claim against one of its own members. That last principle is far more significant than many observers have acknowledged.

    Guyanese President Irfaan Ali’s formal written response to the CARICOM chair was therefore both fully justified and necessary. It was not an overreaction, nor was it empty political rhetoric. It was a principled defense of international law at a moment when ambiguity could have easily damaged that principle.

    For context, this article’s author worked closely with Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez between 2015 and 2017, when he opposed efforts by some Organization of American States member states to impose unilateral sanctions on the Venezuelan government that violated the OAS’s own rules. That stance grew out of a core commitment to due process, international law, and fair treatment of all nations, and the author still recognizes Rodríguez as a formidable defender of her government’s interests during a period of intense geopolitical pressure. But this current controversy has nothing to do with personal relationships, political alignments, or pieces of clothing. It is entirely a matter of principle, legal process, and respect for the ICJ’s ongoing adjudication.

    The larger question raised by this incident goes far beyond the Essequibo border: it asks whether all parties will actually back their public commitments to international law with conduct that aligns with those commitments. For this dispute to end in a peaceful, final resolution consistent with international rules, the ICJ’s process must be allowed to move forward without external actions that prejudge or politicize its outcome. That requires deliberate restraint, not provocative symbolism; it demands disciplined adherence to process, not political theater.

    A small lapel brooch cannot redraw an international boundary. But the conduct it represents can either strengthen or undermine the very principles that are supposed to guide the peaceful resolution of this dispute. In this case, the Caribbean community has made its position clear: quietly but unflinchingly, it stands on the side of international law.

  • Postponement of launch of Grenada Decent Work Country Programme

    Postponement of launch of Grenada Decent Work Country Programme

    Grenada’s Ministry of Legal Affairs, Labour and Consumer Affairs has issued an official public announcement confirming that the much-anticipated launch of the 2026–2031 Grenada Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) will not proceed as originally planned. The official ceremony, which was scheduled to coincide with national May Day celebrations on Carriacou on 1 May 2026, has been rescheduled to a future date that will be shared with the public once finalized.

    The decision to delay the launch was reached through collective consultations among all core governing stakeholders: the Government of Grenada, the Grenada Trades Union Council (GTUC), the Grenada Employers’ Federation (GEF), and the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The delay stems from unforeseen logistical or operational circumstances that were not accounted for during initial planning. All participating parties have emphasized that their shared commitment to the Decent Work Agenda remains unchanged, and the delay is intended to ensure the official launch properly reflects the programme’s national importance and its foundational tripartite structure that includes government, worker representatives, and employer groups.

    As a flagship national policy initiative for the next five years, the DWCP is designed to guide coordinated, cross-sector action across six key priority areas: expanding access to decent and productive employment, strengthening regulatory and institutional governance of the national labour market, expanding accessible social protection for all workers, improving standards for occupational safety and health across all workplaces, scaling up targeted workforce skills development, and reinforcing productive social dialogue between labour and industry stakeholders. The programme itself was already developed through a year-long, inclusive tripartite consultation process, with specialized technical guidance and support provided by the ILO.

    While the formal launch and tripartite signing ceremony have been deferred, ministry officials confirmed that all substantive pre-implementation work and preparatory activities for the DWCP will continue on schedule. The initiative remains a top policy priority for the ministry and all its social partner stakeholders. A new official date for the launch and signing will be announced to the public after additional internal consultations between all participating parties.

    In closing the announcement, the Ministry of Legal Affairs, Labour and Consumer Affairs reaffirmed its longstanding, collaborative partnership with the GTUC, GEF, and ILO. It also restated its unwavering commitment to advancing fair decent work outcomes and social justice for all workers and employers across Grenada.

  • Former Minister Cannot Escape Corruption Charge, Court Rules

    Former Minister Cannot Escape Corruption Charge, Court Rules

    In a historic decision that reshapes the landscape of executive accountability in Belize, the Supreme Court has rejected a legal bid by former Cabinet Minister Rene Montero to dismiss corruption-related charges against him, confirming that sitting and former government ministers can be held criminally liable for abuses of power under the nation’s Criminal Code.

    The case centers on allegations first brought in April 2024, when Montero—who previously served as the Works Minister under the UDP administration—and George Andrews, a former Assistant District Technical Supervisor at the Ministry of Works, were jointly indicted on charges of wilful oppression under Sections 284(1) and 309 of the Belize Criminal Code. Prosecutors allege that between April 2016 and November 2020, the pair deliberately misused their authority to direct and permit the improper diversion of public government resources, causing direct harm to the Belizean public.

    Montero’s legal team launched a pre-trial challenge to have the entire indictment thrown out, grounding their argument in a technical constitutional interpretation. They pointed to Section 131(4) of the Belize Constitution, which explicitly excludes political Ministers from the formal definition of the “public service.” Counsel argued this exclusion should extend to the Criminal Code, placing elected ministers beyond the reach of Section 284(1) which only applies to “public officers.” They further contended that the Constitution intentionally draws a clear line between the political executive—held accountable primarily through electoral democracy—and the permanent public service, which is subject to administrative law oversight; erasing that distinction, they argued, was constitutionally invalid, especially in criminal law where status-based liability must be clearly defined.

    The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) pushed back forcefully against this interpretation, noting that the Section 131(4) exclusion opens with the limiting phrase “In this Constitution,” meaning it was only intended to apply to the internal operational provisions of the constitutional document itself. The DPP argued Parliament never intended this narrow constitutional definition to override how criminal statutes define liability for public officials.

    In her ruling delivered in late March 2026, Justice Natalie Creary-Dixon sided squarely with the prosecution. She emphasized that Section 299 of the Belize Criminal Code contains its own independent definition of “public officer, created explicitly for criminal law purposes and separate from any definitions laid out in the Constitution. Under the Criminal Code’s wording, a public officer is any person holding a civil office whose appointment and removal falls to the Governor-General or other specified official authority. Since all government ministers are formally appointed by the Governor-General under Section 40 of the Constitution, and hold non-military civil positions in the government, they clearly meet the plain language definition of public officer under the code.

    The judge stressed that the Constitution’s exclusion of ministers from the definition of “public service” applies only to matters covered by the constitutional text itself, and does not grant ministers any blanket immunity from prosecution under ordinary criminal law. In a key passage of the judgment, Justice Creary-Dixon wrote: “The Constitution does not confer immunity upon Ministers from the application of criminal law. On one view, interpreting section 299 so as to include Ministers arguably advances the constitutional value of the rule of law by ensuring that holders of significant executive authority remain subject to legal standards governing abuse of public power.”

    With Montero’s application to quash the indictment rejected, his criminal trial will move forward as scheduled. Legal analysts across Belize widely agree that this ruling will carry far-reaching implications for future cases of ministerial misconduct, establishing a clear precedent that no senior elected official is above the reach of criminal law when accused of abusing public office.

  • Senator Bernard wants body-worn cameras by the police to be mandatory

    Senator Bernard wants body-worn cameras by the police to be mandatory

    KINGSTON, Jamaica — As the Jamaican Senate wrapped up debate and passed a revised version of the 2026 Cybercrimes Bill last Friday, a key opposition lawmaker used the legislative moment to push for sweeping new transparency measures for the nation’s police force, amid growing public concern over a sharp uptick in fatal police shootings.

    Opposition Senator Allan Bernard is calling for the creation of a comprehensive digital accountability regime that would enshrine a mandatory statutory body-worn camera policy for all officers of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF). The push comes as the country grapples with a troubling spike in fatal police encounters: 115 fatal shootings have been recorded by police so far this year, a 32 percent jump from the 87 deaths recorded in the same period in 2025.

    Bernard’s call also directly pushes back against recent comments from the island’s top security official, National Security Minister Dr. Horace Chang, who publicly dismissed previous demands for body camera use during specialized police operations, dismissing the idea as “crazy”.

    While Bernard confirmed that the opposition bloc remains supportive of the amended Cybercrimes Bill, he stressed that the conversation around digital accountability must extend beyond regulation of private citizens to cover state actors themselves. He argued that true national security cannot be separated from adherence to constitutional protections, and that public safety must always be rooted in respect for basic human rights.

    “Digital accountability must apply not only to the governed but also to those who are doing the governing,” Bernard said in remarks on the Senate floor. “That means oversight of the police, their searches, their seizures, their arrests and too oftentimes in Jamaica, the extrajudicial killings.”

    Reporting by Lynford Simpson

  • Ingraham calls fake documents ‘alarming’ but doubt stolen vote

    Ingraham calls fake documents ‘alarming’ but doubt stolen vote

    As the Bahamas approaches its upcoming general election, a growing wave of high-profile fraudulent document cases has thrown electoral integrity into the national spotlight, drawing divergent and cautiously worded reactions from the country’s most senior political figures. Former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, a stalwart of the opposition Free National Movement (FNM), emerged as one of the most prominent voices sounding the alarm after casting his ballot in the early advance polling. Speaking to reporters immediately after voting, Ingraham described the rising frequency of cases where individuals have been caught with counterfeit passports and voter registration cards as deeply alarming.

    While Ingraham echoed widespread concerns within the FNM that the national voter registry contains serious irregularities—including duplicate entries and incomplete records lacking valid birth dates—he stopped short of endorsing the opposition party’s more extreme claims that the election could be stolen through systematic manipulation. The former prime minister stressed that he does not believe the country’s electoral framework is vulnerable enough to be altered to flip a final election result, and urged all eligible Bahamian voters to turn out to cast their ballots regardless of the ongoing controversy. Still, he emphasized that the scale of fraudulent document access remained a pressing worry. “But I am concerned about how large numbers of people it appears have got access to Bahamian passports and other such documents, and that is a very concerning matter,” Ingraham told reporters. He added that he hopes the irregularities are rooted in bureaucratic incompetence rather than coordinated, intentional wrongdoing meant to skew the election.

    Another former Bahamian prime minister, Perry Christie of the ruling Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), pushed back on the opposition’s framing of the issue yesterday, arguing that existing safeguards built into the country’s electoral system make widespread election fraud effectively unachievable. Christie noted that organized large-scale fraud of the type being discussed by FNM figures has never occurred in the Bahamas’ electoral history, and rejected suggestions that it could take place this cycle. “It’s very difficult, if not next to impossible, to have the kind of fraud that they’re talking about in our voting system here and it hasn’t happened before, it’s not going to happen now,” Christie said. He characterized the focus on fraud as political posturing, noting that parties often elevate issues they believe will resonate with voters to gain an edge ahead of polling day. Christie also pointed to the Bahamas’ longstanding electoral trend—where single parties rarely win consecutive terms in office—as evidence that election results consistently reflect the unmanipulated will of the electorate, rather than tampering.

    The debate over document fraud has intensified in recent months following a string of high-profile arrests linked to counterfeit and improperly obtained identification. The most recent high-profile case came on April 27, when a Dominican national was charged with fraudulently acquiring a Bahamian voter card and multiple Bahamian passports, marking the latest in a series of similar incidents. Less than two weeks prior, on April 15, an employee of the country’s Parliamentary Registration Department was arrested for allegedly assisting a Haitian woman in obtaining an illegal voter identification card, and was found in possession of five blank official voter cards.

    In comments made earlier in April, National Security Minister Wayne Munroe, a member of the ruling PLP, stated that any public official convicted of involvement in passport fraud would face a maximum sentence of up to ten years in prison if the PLP wins a second consecutive term in office. For his part, FNM Leader and opposition chief Michael Pintard has repeatedly raised alarms about the scope of document fraud occurring under the current PLP administration, though he has yet to release a detailed plan outlining what specific policy or regulatory changes his party would implement to address the problem if elected.

  • US sanctions are ‘collective punishment,’ says Cuba during May 1 marches

    US sanctions are ‘collective punishment,’ says Cuba during May 1 marches

    HAVANA, CUBA – Fresh economic sanctions imposed on Cuba by former United States President Donald Trump have sparked fierce condemnation from Cuban officials, who label the new measures an act of collective punishment against the island’s civilian population. The sanctions took effect Friday, coinciding with Cuba’s annual May 1 celebrations that drew tens of thousands of demonstrators marching to the US Embassy in Havana under the rallying cry of “Defend the Homeland.”

    Geopolitical tensions between Washington and Havana have stretched across more than six decades. Ever since Fidel Castro led a communist revolution that seized power in 1959, the US has maintained a near-continuous trade embargo against the island nation, which sits just 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Prior to rolling out the new sanctions, Trump had publicly mused about the possibility of taking full control of Cuba.

    Under the executive order signed Friday, the Trump administration expanded sanctions coverage to target any individual linked to major sectors of Cuba’s state-controlled economy. The new measures apply to actors operating in energy, national defense and materiel production, metal and mining, financial services, and public security, as well as any other economic segment deemed relevant by the US. The order also targets Cuban government officials accused of involvement in serious human rights violations and systemic corruption.

    Cuba’s top diplomat Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez immediately pushed back against the new measures. In a public post on X, written in English, Rodriguez stated: “We firmly reject the recent unilateral coercive measures adopted by the #UnitedStates government. These actions demonstrate an intention to impose, once again, collective punishment on the Cuban people.” In a follow-up Spanish-language statement, he further characterized the sanctions as both illegal and abusive.

    For Cuba, the new sanctions come as the country already grapples with a deep and prolonged economic crisis that has been compounded by recent US pressure. A US fuel blockade implemented in January has drastically cut the country’s access to energy imports, with only a single Russian oil tanker successfully reaching Cuban ports since the blockade went into effect. Chronic supply shortages and routine rolling blackouts have become daily realities for most Cuban citizens, and tourism — long the country’s highest-revenue industry — has collapsed to historic lows.

    Notably, the new sanctions were announced just weeks after a significant diplomatic shift: senior US officials traveled to Havana for bilateral dialogue in April, raising tentative hopes of reduced tensions between the two nations.

    Friday’s mass rally outside the US Embassy was led by Cuba’s sitting President Miguel Diaz-Canel and former revolutionary leader Raul Castro, drawing massive crowds of Cuban citizens who turned out to demonstrate against US policy. The day before the rally, Diaz-Canel had already called on all Cubans to mobilize against what he described as “the genocidal blockade and the crude imperial threats to our country.”

    Throughout the rally, Cuban officials announced that more than six million signatures had been collected across the country over the past six weeks as part of a “for the homeland and for peace” campaign opposing US policy. Cuban opposition figures have, however, raised public questions about the transparency and methodology of the signature collection process.

    State-run Cuban television broadcast parallel mass gatherings in cities across the island, showing thousands of additional protesters turning out to voice opposition to the new sanctions.

  • Landslide victory for Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party in general election

    Landslide victory for Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party in general election

    In a high-stakes political gamble that paid off spectacularly, Gaston Browne and his ruling Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party (ABLP) secured a historic landslide victory in an early general election held Thursday, granting Browne an unprecedented fourth consecutive term as prime minister. The snap poll, called almost two full years before the country’s constitutional deadline for elections, delivered a resounding mandate to the ABLP that dramatically expanded its narrow hold on parliament from the 2023 vote.

    Preliminary official results from the Antigua and Barbuda Electoral Commission (ABEC) confirm the ABLP won 15 of the 17 contested parliamentary seats, a stark reversal of the razor-thin 9-7 majority the party scraped together just 18 months prior in January 2023. The overwhelming win marks a defining moment in the nation’s political history, as Browne becomes the first head of government in Antigua and Barbuda to win four straight general election contests.
    Browne, who easily retained the St John’s City West constituency he has represented since 1999, struck a unifying tone in post-victory remarks to supporters and the public. In a statement posted to the ABLP’s official Facebook page, he acknowledged the magnitude of the public’s trust, writing, “We are humbled and honoured by your support and confidence. Now is the time to move forward together, build on our gains and continue our work on this long journey toward the betterment of our society and the upliftment of our people.”

    Addressing gathered supporters, Browne emphasized that his administration would prioritize inclusive growth and equal access to opportunity for all residents, regardless of political affiliation. “We are here to serve all the people of Antigua and Barbuda. Education, jobs, business opportunities will be open to all who are prepared to seize them,” he said. “No one will be left behind who is willing to move forward. And notwithstanding your political persuasion, this is not a time for laggards. This is a time for all of us to perform, to increase our productivity and to make sure that Antigua and Barbuda becomes one of the most productive small island states globally.”

    Browne noted that infrastructure and community development projects were already underway across the twin-island nation, and his incoming administration would build on that existing progress to advance new initiatives that improve quality of life and national pride. “We must remain a dignified people. We must not cower to anyone. We must not be timid. We must stand tall in every forum, every regional, and every international forum as Antiguans and Barbudans,” he added, rejecting calls for triumphalism after the landslide win. “So just in case anyone expected me to gloat, at the end of the day, the contest is over. From all indications, the people who have supported us to get between 15 of the 17 seats, that in itself is a resounding mandate for which we are eternally grateful.”

    Only two seats escaped ABLP control in the contest. Jamale Pringle, leader of the main opposition United Progressive Party (UPP), managed to defend his constituency, defeating ABLP candidate Anthony Smith to retain the party’s only seat in the new parliament. On the smaller sister island of Barbuda, incumbent Trevor Walker of the Barbuda People’s Movement (BPM) held onto his seat, earning 609 votes to defeat Kendra Beazer, a former BPM member running on the ABLP ticket, who earned 398 votes.

    Pringle congratulated the ABLP on their victory in a brief post-election statement, acknowledging the outcome while pledging the UPP would remain an active opposition force moving forward. “I want to thank all Antiguans and Barbudans who have supported the United Progressive Party. We’re indeed grateful and you will hear from us in a short time,” he said. Noting that “there’s no second place in politics,” Pringle added, “Just as we did in 2018, we’ll still be standing. We can’t get enough of the United Progressive Party. We’ll still be there.”

    Several high-profile candidates fell to defeat in the ABLP wave, including former finance minister Harold Lovell, who had come out of a brief retirement from active politics following his 2023 election loss only to lose again to Anthony Smith in the All Saints West constituency. Browne’s wife, incumbent Public Works Minister Maria Browne, also won her contest, handily defeating UPP candidate Ashworth Azille to take the St John’s Rural East seat. All three independent candidates running in the election failed to gain traction, losing their electoral deposits after falling well below the required vote threshold.

    Browne had framed the snap election as a necessary step to secure a new mandate to continue the socio-economic progress the ABLP has overseen since the party first took power in 2014, calling the campaign a “renaissance” for the nation. That strategic bet has now delivered one of the most lopsided election results in the country’s modern history, clearing the way for the ABLP to implement its full policy agenda over the coming term.

  • JCA, WCLA call for gov’t to provide timeline for body-worn cameras

    JCA, WCLA call for gov’t to provide timeline for body-worn cameras

    KINGSTON, Jamaica — Two major Jamaican church coalitions have ramped up pressure on the Andrew Holness administration to outline a definitive national stance and binding implementation timeline for equipping police officers with body-worn cameras, amid growing public friction over inconsistent official statements and a persistent high rate of fatal police shootings.

    In a joint public statement released Friday, the Jamaica Umbrella Groups of Churches (JUGC) and the Watchman Church Leaders Alliance (WCLA) are not only pushing for policy clarity but also calling for a broad, inclusive national roundtable. The proposed dialogue would bring together key stakeholders spanning civil society organizations, the Independent Commission of Investigation (INDECOM) — Jamaica’s independent police oversight body — religious leadership, the Ministry of National Security, and senior command of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) to tackle the urgent issue of deadly police use of force.

    The coalition pointed out that the current conflicting public positions from top government officials have created crippling policy ambiguity that erodes public confidence in national security. Specifically, the groups highlighted the open divergence between Prime Minister Andrew Holness and National Security Minister Horace Chang on the value and deployment of body-worn cameras. Holness has repeatedly stated publicly that his government is committed to rolling out the surveillance devices to frontline officers. But Chang has consistently pushed back against the policy, voicing repeated skepticism over more than two years.

    Chang first questioned the utility of body-worn cameras during a post-Cabinet media briefing in November 2024, arguing that the devices offer minimal value in the context of fatal police shootings. He claimed at the time that officers engaged in gunfire would prioritize taking cover, making it unlikely the cameras would capture clear, usable footage. In an April 2026 post-Cabinet update, Chang doubled down on his criticism, questioning the practicality of deploying cameras during confrontations with heavily armed criminal gangs and repeating concerns that the devices could put officers at greater risk. He also argued that persistent public demands for body-worn cameras reinforce widespread public mistrust of the JCF.

    In his most recent public comments on the issue, reported this week, Chang added a new objection: claiming that the design of standard police uniforms creates an inherent physical barrier to mounting and using body cameras effectively. He also noted that other systemic reforms are needed to improve policing beyond the introduction of body-worn devices.

    The church coalitions said they do not disagree that additional reforms are necessary to strengthen Jamaican policing. It is precisely because multiple improvements are needed, they argue, that body-worn cameras should be implemented as a core measure to boost both accountability and officer protection.

    The groups emphasized that they recognize the extraordinary occupational pressure and safety risks that Jamaica’s police officers face amid high rates of violent crime and gang activity. Even so, they maintain that greater transparency through mandatory body camera use does not undermine effective law enforcement — instead, it strengthens it. They pointed to the country’s persistently high number of fatal police shootings as evidence that more, not less, independent oversight is needed to rebuild public confidence.

    “Where operations lack clarity, suspicion replaces trust, and the divide widens,” the groups wrote in their joint statement, warning that continued policy inaction will only deepen the rift between law enforcement and the communities they serve.