CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
A serious allegation has surfaced against the Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force (ABDF), as a fresh court filing accuses the military leadership of deliberately providing false information to the High Court, resulting in what the litigant describes as an erroneous and unjust decision.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
The dispute stems from ongoing legal proceedings brought by Captain Javonson Willock, who has alleged misconduct in public office against Brigadier General Telbert Benjamin and Lieutenant Colonel Dalton Graham.
The matter is scheduled for trial on October 8, 2025, and tensions have heightened following revelations that critical information presented to the Court may have been misleading.
Captain Willock applied to the High Court seeking permission to cross-examine Lieutenant Colonel Alando Michael and Sergeant Manyakie Edwards, both of whom are central witnesses for the defence.
During last Thursday’s hearing, Willock argued that Sergeant Edwards’ testimony was pivotal in demonstrating the alleged malice and misconduct of the defendants.
The defendants opposed the application, in part, claiming that Sergeant Edwards was in China, where time-zone differences and communication challenges made remote testimony impractical.
Acting on that information, the Court denied Willock’s request to cross-examine Edwards and further ordered him to pay $750 in costs to the defendants for his late application.
Willock has since filed new evidence suggesting that Edwards is not in China at all, but is instead in the United States, where time-zone differences and communication barriers are minimal.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
This revelation raises questions about the integrity of the defence’s submissions to the Court and the fairness of the judicial process.
The allegation that the ABDF may have misled a sitting High Court judge strikes at the heart of public confidence in state institutions.
If senior members of the Defence Force are found to have knowingly misrepresented facts to the judiciary, it could erode trust in the justice system and the armed forces.
The High Court is now expected to consider Captain Willock’s fresh application to cross-examine Sergeant Edwards in light of the new evidence.
Willock continues to represent himself while the defendants are represented by Mrs. Joy Dublin-Baptiste, Ms. Rose-Ann Kim, and Ms. Chandera Codrinton.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
You can’t cross examine a witness? You can’t call that witness as your own and request to treat that witness as a hostile one at an appropriate time during questioning? What? Even if the request to cross examine came after refusing to earlier cross examine, wouldn’t the extreme and serious allegations, hopefully presented would other kind of evidence of the claim/allegations, not justify a hearing on the specific matter/allegation?
Please leave the Privy council as the final court of appeals for Antigua and Barbuda and the Caribbean.
God Save The King!!!
Did the Defense Force really tell a lie that the witness is in China when in fact he is in the USA. Are they lying, or were they just mistaken.
If the witness is on vacation and traveled on his own, Judge ME will rule, okay small mistake. Let’s move on.
But if the witness is really in the USA on Defense Force Matters., then Judge me will rule, “Case over. Captain Willocks wins.
If they lied on one issue, there is a great chance they lied on others
Where someone is representing themselves the Judge has a duty to give that individual latitude and direction.