COMMENTARY: Acrimonious Nature Of The Human Heart


by Rawlston Pompey

It has been said that ‘All things work for ‘God’s Glory.’ Conversely, there have been some things that have brought upon humans untold and endless misery. In living memory, there has human desperation as there has been opportunistic exploitation of the human mind and person. These are daily features within the wider society. These have been occurrences within many organizations, formal or informal. Thus, as has often been the case in social organizations,’ the same have occurred in formal and disciplined organizations.’ These include many international Law enforcement agencies. The national Police Service of ‘Antigua and Barbuda’ is no exception.   Instructively, the simpleton, naïve, the stupid and those cultured into a ‘State of Docility,’ would deny that humans are not used as tools, if the ‘End justifies the means.’ This has always been part of the human experience.


Not infrequently, either ‘Fate or Murphy’s Law’ dictates that something tragic shall occur. It is inevitable, as it is inescapable. With ‘Fate’ it happens and with ‘Murphy’s Law’ it is both phenomenal and dictatorial. It states; ‘…Whatever is to happen, will happen.’ Given the experiences of former Commissioner ‘Wendell Robinson, Barrister-at-law,’ situationally, likened to ‘Martial Law,’ ‘Murphy’s Law’ was made applicable. If it were not so, then after dark tonight, every practicing male attorney may be at some ‘Spanish Night Club.’ The facts are undisputable. After (i) ‘…Thirty-two (32) years in the Police Service; (ii) …Unproved allegations of inappropriate conduct; (iii) …Constitutional right of the presumption of innocence; and (iv) …Denial of natural justice.’


His days of glory, turned into misery when ‘practicing attorney, former Acting Judge and Police Service (PSC) Chairman, ‘Kelvin John,’ denied him of a position, thereby deprived him of a fully-served tenure. Either with unanimous concurrence of ‘five (5) other members or by majority decision,’ his ‘Pen’ became mightier than the ‘Sword.’ The former Commissioner was ‘Sacked without Benefits.’ This not only speaks to his professional and personal demise, but also to the acrimonious nature of a ‘Commission’ comprised of men with hearts clearly filled with ‘Acrimonious Evil’ [November 25, 2019].


The ‘Antigua and Barbuda Constitution Order’ [N0. 1106 0f 1981], incidentally not widely read or called the ‘Supreme Law,’ has shown that men endowed with ability to foresee future occurrences. They appeared to have possessed a keen sense of anticipation. Somehow, they believed that people placed in certain ‘privileged positions,’ may do the unthinkable or caused the unthinkable to be done. This commentary looks at the ‘Procedural Cul-de-sac,’encountered by ‘Commissioner of Police Atlee Rodney QPM,’ pertinent to an incident involving his ‘Operations Deputy Albert M.P. Wade.’ It looks not at the ‘merit or demerit’ of the incident, but primarily at certain procedural provisions contained in; (a) ‘…The Police Act [Chapter 330]; (b) …The Civil Service Regulations [No. 1 of 1993] and (c) Constitutional provisions [1981].


In organizations where members opportunistically forego their allegiance and loyalty to them, likened to ships encountering turbulent seas or an airborne aircraft encountering turbulence, there are two possibilities; (i) ‘…The ship is bound to rock; while (ii) …The latter is likely to fall from the sky.’ In Law enforcement agencies, their membership will have seen; (i) ‘…The Good; (ii) …Bad; (iii) …Ugly; (iv) …Crooked; and (v) …Stupid.’ Framers of the nation’s ‘Constitution Order’ [Antigua and Barbuda: 1981] anticipated that people with ‘Unsecured Tenure’ might be expediently or conveniently used as; (a) ‘…Rabbits; (b) …Guinea Pigs; and (c) …Monkeys.’ Framers also believed that depraved public officials may wish to use; (i) ‘…State Power; (ii) …State Agencies; and (iii) …State Resources’to cause certain biddings.


For want of knowledge, there are those that appeared not to have properly read and understood the ‘Constitution Order’[Antigua and Barbuda: 1981].  Consequently, it appeared that those that are constitutionally-positioned to advise or guide, have caused to be ingrained into the minds of decision-makers a false sense of belief. Not infrequently situations were allowed to develop in organizations that were clearly inimical to the interests of the membership and the very organizations. Invariably, situations so suffered and having been so festered, had caused discord among, and rifts in the membership. This has been the case of many ‘Disciplined Forces.’ In this context, and for this commentary the ‘Disciplined Force’ herein refers is the ‘Royal Police Force of Antigua and Barbuda.’


There are ‘Commissioners of Police’ with apparent harbored belief that they are in fact ‘subordinate to ‘Commissions or Permanent Secretaries.’ There are ‘Commissioners,’ seemingly starved of administrative knowledge that often seek to influence ‘Permanent Secretaries’ to commit cardinal sins. The suspicious and alert often shied away. Likened to language signifying authority that resides with the ‘Public and Police Service Commissions,’ the ‘Constitution Order’ also sets out the authority of the ‘Police Service Commission (PSC).’


Even as the ‘Constitution Order’ interprets ‘Disciplined Forces,’ and defines ‘Disciplinary Law,’ most members of both ‘Commissions’ and of the ‘Gazetted Rank,’ continue to harbor with erroneous belief that senior officers are ‘Civil Servants.’ If it were so, there may have been no need for the ‘Police Act’ that guides the; (i) ‘…Status; (ii) …Powers and duties; (iii) …Role and functions of Police officers’ [Sections 18: 22 & 23: Chapter 330]. A Commissioner of Police ‘Butting head’ with the ‘Heads’ of other Government departments runs the risk of being seen in want of ‘Administrative Skills.’ This is likely, particularly if the ‘Butted Heads’ specifically relates to investigative and disciplinary procedures.


Instructively, the ‘Disciplined Forces’ contained in the constitutional provisions are identified as; (i) ‘…Naval, Military or Air Force; (ii) …Police Force; and (iii) …Prison Service.’ Recognizing that there shall be ‘Good Conduct’ within the ‘Disciplined Forces,’ the framers of the ‘Constitution Order’ also wisely inserted into it provisions affecting the conduct of members seen as far removed from ‘Good Discipline.’ More importantly, it speaks to ‘Member’ that includes ‘…Any person who, under the law regulating the discipline of such Force, is subject to that discipline’ [CO: 1981: Section 21 (i)]. In the case of the Military, those subject to ‘Military Discipline,’ measures necessary to address indiscipline are contained in the ‘Defence Act’ [No. 10 of 2006].  In the case of ‘Prison Discipline,’ this is governed by ‘Prison Regulations’ as contained in the ‘Prison Act’ [Section 12: Prison Rules: Chapter 341].


As it relates to disciplinary investigation, the provisions contained in the ‘Constitution Order,’ limits the ‘Police Service Commission’ to …Disciplinary control (superior ranks). This speaks to ‘Referrals’ formally made to it by the ‘Commissioner of Police’ only for ‘Hearing and Determination’ [Section 105]. It shall be told that neither; (a) ‘…The Attorney General; (b) …Police Service Commission; nor (c) …Public Service Commissions,’ are investigative or advisory bodies on ‘Police Discipline.’ While there have been ‘Private Whisperings,’ Attorney General, Police Minister and Principal Legal Adviser to the Government, ‘Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin’ [CO: 1981: Section 82], has distanced from recent developments within the ‘Police Service.’


It may have been purely for ‘democratic reasons’ that the framers of the ‘Constitution Order’ had inserted this Section. The other logical reason may have been to avoid ‘Administrative Confusion.’ Another reason may have been their anticipation that people placed in ‘privileged position’ may exploit those that are strategically positioned to be exploited and/or unfairly treated.’ These were often the; (i) …Loyalists and faithful; (ii) …Compliant fearful; and (iii) …The innocent and docile stupid.’ The naive have often deviated from roles and functions distinctively sectionalized and identified by two watchdog Commissions; (a) ‘…The Public Service Commission (PSC); and (b) …The Police Service Commission (PSC).


In the case of both Commissions, the Constitution used the same language; ‘…The power to; (a) ‘…Appoint persons to hold or act in offices in the public service; (b) …Including the power to make appointments on promotion and transfer and to confirm appointments; and (c) …The power to exercise disciplinary control over persons holding or acting in offices; and (d) …To remove such persons from office shall vest in the Public Service Commission’ [Section 100]. Persons appointed by the ‘Commissions and Governor General’ and aggrieved by any adverse decision, enjoy some ‘Measure of Protection’ [Sections 107 & 108].’ This is available to employees within the ‘Civil and Police Services’[Section 99 & 105].


Though not necessarily ‘Covid-related Protocol,’ Attorney General, Principal Legal Adviser to the Government [CO: 1981: Section 82] and Police Minister ‘Steadroy ‘Cutie’ Benjamin’ has distance himself from offering or tendering advice of any form to ‘Commissioner of Police Atlee Rodney.’ He has ensured that he is not fingered in the ‘Wade/Rodney Drama,’ as attempts were being made to subject him to similar experience of ‘former Commissioner Wendel Robinson,’ However, that which appeared most intriguing, was the fact that on the one hand ‘Commissioner Atlee Rodney,’ said to have given ‘Deputy Commissioner Albert Wade’ assurances that he was not on a ‘witch-hunt,’ but reportedly have been surreptitiously consulting with certain bodies and a possible civilian team of investigators.


The bodies so identified have been; (a) ‘…The blunder-prone Police Service Commission (PSC), chaired and led by eminent former ‘Acting Judge and distinguished practicing attorney ‘Kelvin John;’ (b) …Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Legal Affairs; and (iii) …The Magistracy.’ Those familiar with organizational discipline and procedure, know that neither of these august bodies have locus standi in the investigation into; (i) ‘…Report; (ii) …Allegation; or (iii) …Complaint received by the Commissioner of Police [Disciplinary Offences: Section 4: Police Act: Chapter 330].


It is to be understood that neither of these bodies shall render unsolicited advice, dictate, order, direct or instruct a ‘Commissioner of Police,’ how he may or may not perform his duties. This has been settled law. It was made sufficiently clear by eminent British Jurist ‘Lord Alfred Thompson ‘Tom’ Denning’ [1899-1999], in his dicta that; (a) ‘…No Minister of the Crown and no Police authority can tell the Commissioner how he/she shall perform his duties; and (b) …He is answerable to the law, and only the law’ [Regina v Metropolitan Police Commissioner: Raymond Blackburne ex-parte: 1968: 1 AER: 763]. Management principles dictate that the appropriate course of conduct for such bodies, has always been to ‘…Stay in their own lanes’ [former ‘ABTB’ Manager Harry Josiah: March 20, 2021].


Consequent upon existing situation, it may neither have been seen or called the ‘Albert Wade Atlee Rodney Fiasco.’Few may deny that a very simple incident and a clear attempt to cause punishment to be visited upon the former of the two most senior officers. Either one could see the end of misery, or the ushering in of a new, but gloomy day looming just beyond the horizon. Full of enthusiasm, fearless and purposeful, he left a comparatively ‘safe open environment’ to undertake a ‘Seconded Assignment’ within a ‘dangerous enclosed environment.’ The latter had not relinquished his status as conferred upon members of the ‘Police Service’ [Section 18: Police Act: Chapter 330].


Unlike the ‘Soldier Crab’ that embodies itself in any fitly shell, there comes a time when a ‘male crab’ believes he owns the only crab hole. Humans have not only made the flesh of crabs a delicacy, but have also mimicked their behavior. With such ‘Crab-like Syndrome,’ there comes a time when the person occupying certain positions, believes that only he/she is not only best suited for the position, but also capable of performing any kind of role. This often meant that likened to ‘an intrusive Crab,’ there will be jostling for positions. From the perspective of professional development and advancement, the ambitious often holds high hope and ‘Reasonable Expectations.’ These are consistent with the ‘Founding Constitutional Principle.’


Principal of the ‘Principal of the ‘Princess Margaret School (PMS),’ Dr. Colin Greene, instructed ‘Form Twoers’ that; ‘…Whereas the people of Antigua and Barbuda respect the principle of ‘Social Justice,’ that there shall be opportunity for advancement on the basis of; (a) ‘…Recognition of merit; (b) …Ability; and (c) …Integrity.’ These were more often evident by (i) ‘…Cronyism; (ii) …Insularity; and (iii) …Nepotism.’  Such has been an unfriendly environmentally-imposed ‘Cultural Practice’ in some organizations.


Reflecting upon living memory, there came a time when ‘Hell Broke Loose’ within the Police Service. To all intents and purposes, this occurred under the ‘command, superintendence and tenure of ‘Truehart O.M. Smith QPM’ [2002]. Then holding the enviable position of ‘Commissioner of Police,’ with ‘Elton Martin QPM’ as Deputy Commissioner,’ ‘Satan’appeared to have walked through and split the rank and file. Respecting the former, though he was not flirtatious with evil or danger, by a ‘Police Service Commission (PSC),’ then comprised mostly of ‘Minions of the Devil.’


Most neither possessed ‘Godly’ virtues nor ‘Satanic’ tendencies,’ but exhibited ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ personalities. If any of these two senior officers were ‘God,’ he may have had some subordinates capable of being called, ‘Saints of God.’Conversely, if the other was ‘Satan,’ he had more followers that may have been, rightly or wrongly, called ‘Minions of the Devil.’ From a deceptive and acrimonious perspective, men who serving on the ‘Police Service Commission,’ were clearly not endowed with ‘reason and conscience.’ Most were known to have engaged in treachery, thereby promoted ‘Organizational Cannibalism. Showing heartlessness,’ thereby causing ‘Commissioner Truehart Smith QPM’ much pain and misery.


From professional knowledge of the unfolding events, the situation had more to do with; (i) ‘…Long-running personality Conflict; (ii) …Ambitions; and (iii) …Aspirations.’ By the time the clock struck 4pm, his bright sunny Friday afternoon turned weatherly gray. By the stroke of then ‘Chairman’s Joseph Laurent ‘Ball-Point Pen,’ the walls of his world collapsed. The novelty of the position was given no time to wane. Before he may have said ‘Bold Face,’ his hope for a tenure of longevity abruptly. This was when the ‘Pen’ was shown to be mightier than the ‘Sword.’ Instantly, then ‘Chief of Staff, Senator Asot Michael’ may have been sipping something with ‘Elton Martin and Prime Minister Sir Lester Bryant Bird KCN’ [2002-2005].


It may have all been started when then ‘Superintendent Albert M.P Wade’ seized the opportunity to show his human worth. This occurred when ‘Hell Broke Loose’ within ‘Her Majesty’s Prison.’ It shall now be seen that where ‘Police Angels’ fear danger, he showed grit and adventurism. Taking up that which seemed troubling for policy-makers and daunting to those that valued their personal safety, he had psychologically prepared himself for any eventuality within the confines of the nation’s penal institution. When ‘Commissioner Wendell Robinson’ found himself looking into the Police Service, the then ‘Superintendent’ not only found himself looking out of a red-painted Prison Gate.’


That which may have been lost into oblivion, was that with a ‘conjoin loyalty,’ he performed his role within the ‘Prison and Police Services.’ The assumed responsibility entailed superintendence of an institution not only ‘infested and over-populated with brazen creepy rodents, but also some of the nation’s most notorious criminals. Compounding such tenure were conditions deemed ‘Sub-human,’ and conducive only to penal escape or insurrection. Incarcerated, he had not only established an open line of communication, but also a bond of friendship with most residents and officers.


None had given him illegitimate reasons to cause the ‘Police and Military’ to seek out their whereabouts. To his subordinates, he was ‘Deputy Commissioner.’ Formally, he was ‘Superintendent,’ while fondly to some, ‘Super.’ He respected their human dignity and reportedly won the hearts of the most ‘Dangerous, Deadly and Deadly’ convicts. Many gravitated to his mannerism. As hardened as some may have been, several reportedly openly wept when he was due to return to active ‘Police Duties’ [November 21, 2014 – February 2019]. Those reportedly discharged from the penal institution have neither lost respect for, nor contact with him.


Positionally, ‘Deputy Commissioner of Police, Albert M. P. Wade’ may have been awkwardly displaced, while ‘Deputy Commissioner Atlee Rodney’ found himself ‘Advantageously Positioned.’ Both senior officers were not only as loyal as they were committed to the ‘Police Service,’ but have also proved themselves professionally competent. From professional observations, the former was the ‘Information and Technology’ officer, while the latter was not only professionally competent, but also displayed good investigative skills.


Their approach to their work spoke to a good sense of judgment, purpose and direction. Among the ‘Commonalities’they appeared to have shared was an uncanny and jovial mannerism. Organizationally, both were well known and respected by ‘rank and file members.’ They were mild-mannered and influential. Neither had dispositions that may have caused disaffection, nor provoke disharmony among the rank and file. Naturally, subordinates gravitated to the one with whom they felt more approachable, comfortable and easy to communicate. For reasons of ‘welfare and representation,’ the former will have had greater influence in boosting morale, improved disciplinary behavior among their subordinates.


Professionally wounded and left to grieve with tears on his pillow and pain in his heart, this had never been the experience of ‘former Commissioner Wendell Robinson, Barrister-at-law.’ Yet, before he could complete a line in ‘Nap Hepburn’s Christmas song; ‘…Listen Mama; …I want you to tell Santa Claus to bring….,’ his Deputy Commissioner Atlee Rodney was already singing; ‘…Listen Kelvin; …I want you to thank Santa Clause for the….; …Man you don’t know how happy your friend will be’ [April 5, 2018]. Ironically, speaking to the media Chairman Kelvin John contended that the axed-Commissioner did not; ‘…Possess the suitability of temperament that accords with the office of Commissioner of Police, and that under the Constitution, it was in the public interest’ [OMG: November 26, 2019].


This had never the experience of former Commissioners; (i) ‘…Sir Wright Fitzhenly George KCN, CVO, QPM; (ii) …Edric K. Potter QPM; (iii) …Alvin Goodwin QPM; (iv) …Delano Christopher QPM; (v) …Gary Nelson; and (vi) …Vere Browne.’ Endowed with a keen sense of perception and a unique ability in assessing Subordinates, Sir Wright F. George had often reminded officers; ‘…There might be ‘Many Indians,’ but there is only ‘One Chief.’ The this would follow with; ‘…Knowledge is power, but some of you want power without knowledge’ [Sir Wright F. George: 1974 – 1990].


Fate then provided a ‘Window of Opportunity’ to the former to be elevated to the top position. Mandatory retirement of several senior officers, saw consequential, whereby several juniors catapulted to senior positions seemingly far beyond their professional competencies. The latter’s ‘Secondment’ to the ‘Prison Service’ may have factored into the equation. When fate visited upon the tenure of ‘Commissioner Wendell Robinson,’ with no consideration to insularity, guided by the constitutional provisions, ‘Prime Minister Gaston Browne’ signified approval that ‘Deputy Atlee Rodney,’ to assume superintendence of the ‘Police Service’ [CO: 1981: Section 105 (3): November 2019].


Members of the ‘Public Service Commission (PSC)’ shall know that when the ‘Civil Service Regulations,’ that which governed officers within the ‘Civil Service of Antigua and Barbuda’ interprets ‘Public Interest,’ this is what it states; ‘…In these Regulations, it means that the continued service of duties that is prejudicial to the Government’ [CSA: No. 1 of 1993: Section 85 (1)]. In the case of a Police officer, no matter how reckless or negligent it may appear, the ‘Discharge of a Firearm’ wherever, could never be deemed to be ‘Prejudicial to the Government.’ Contrastingly, discipline within the ‘Police Service,’ speaks to conduct that may be deemed ‘Discreditable’ or likely to bring discredit to its reputation’ [Scheduled Offences: Police Act: Chapter 330].


The applicability of the ‘Disciplinary Rules’ respecting imposition of punishment, resides with the ‘Prison Superintendent.’ Where such punishment appears inadequate, by the ‘Prison Visiting Committee (PVC).’ Incidental to security operations, not then existed, no reference could have been made to the ‘civilianized-staff’ of the ‘Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Conversely, as it affects ‘Police Force Discipline,’ control is exercisable by both the ‘Police Service Commission (PSC)’ [CO: 1981: Section 105] and by the Commissioner of Police of the two lowliest of ranks- ‘Corporals and Constables’ [CO: 105 (5) & Police Act: Chapter 330: Volume VII]. Moreover, it neither made references to (a) ‘…The Civil Service; (b) …Civil Service Act; (c) …Civil Service Regulations; (d) …Permanent Secretary; nor (e) …Public Service Commission (PSC).’


The ‘Disciplinary Code’ sets out specific offences. These range from serious to the most minor of breaches. Dependent upon the seriousness, offending officers may be cited for calculated recklessness or gross negligence.’ Administratively, these are capable of being looked at from one of two perspectives; (i) ‘Disciplinary; or (ii) …Criminally.’ Should the conduct allegedly exhibited have always been looked at gravely. Thus, if the conduct alleged tilted too far away from the ‘Disciplinary Regulations’ and so outrageous to the public conscience, offending officer runs the risk of being subjected to ‘Criminal Prosecutions.’


The most serious among the ‘Scheduled Offences’ is that of; ‘Discreditable Conduct.’ The language contained in the ‘Disciplinary Law,’ as alluded to in the ‘Constitution Order’ [Section 21], though partially subjective, yet precise and discouragingly serious.’ It states; ‘If a member acts in; (i) ‘…Disorderly manner; or (ii) …Any manner ‘Prejudicial to Discipline;’ or (iii) …Likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the Police Service’ [Disciplinary offences: Section 6 (a): Police Act: Chapter 330]. Should the offending officer find no favor with the decision of a ‘Commissioner- delegated Trial Officer,’ he/she faces penalties ranging from; (a) ‘…Dismissal; to (b) …Reduction in rank; to (c) …Reduction in salary; to (d) …A fine of EC$200; to (e). A reprimand’ [Police Disciplinary Code].


There may have been very good reasons for the deliberate omissions of the latter. For the purposes of disciplinary hearings, it anticipates that a ‘Court’ shall be established. In its interpretation it states, ‘…It means a Court established by a disciplinary law.’ That it defines as ‘…A law regulating the discipline of such Forces.’ Thus, the discharge of a ‘Service Firearm’ by a ‘Police officer,’ even when not acting in the ‘Execution of Duty,’ could never be equated with a public officer positioned within the Gaston Browne-led administration and connivingly and covertly or overtly derailing or obstructive to the policies, plans and programmes of the Government.


These appear more in keeping with the term ‘Prejudicial to Government’ as contained in the ‘Civil Service Regulations.’ Having regard to the organizational status of ‘Deputy Commissioner of Police Albert Wade.’ as a serving member of the ‘Police Service,’ mockery may have been made by a ‘Police Service Commission,’ in taking a decision to suspend him. It shall never be ‘unreasonably inferred’ that any person taking critical decisions have consumed more than the decriminalized ‘15 Grammes’ of the vegetable substance for ‘Recreational Use’ and consumable at home, but instead consumed at the office. However, no decision that may have ‘Adverse Effect;’ (a) ‘…Career; (b) …Tenure; (c) …Livelihood; and (d) …Life,’ shall be taken without consideration to the effect such decision may have upon the ‘psychological, mental, emotional and financial’ well-being of the individual.


In the ‘Supreme Law’ of the nation, framers of the ‘Constitution Order,’ seemingly harbored belief that in view of the unpredictable nature and erratic behavior of humans, members of certain ‘Commissions’ may not only express themselves acrimoniously, but also caused them to be victimized by the majority. This is not without merit or legitimate reasons. Recognizing these truths, very prudently and purposefully, they inserted a most fundamental ‘Proviso.’ It states, ‘…In the performance of its functions, the ‘Public Service Commission (PSC)’ shall act in a manner consistent with the ‘General Policy of the Government’ as conveyed to the Commission by the Prime Minister’ [Section 100 (6)].


Anticipating interference and offering some measure of protection some office-holders, framers of the ‘Constitution Order’ purposefully inserted a ‘Protective Provision.’ It states,’ This Section shall not apply in relation to certain offices namely; (i) …The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP); (ii) …Director of Audit; (iii) …The Attorney General; (iv)…Supervisor of Elections; and (vi) …Any office of the Police Force.’ Reasonable inferences might be drawn, that they also believed that certain office-holders shall not only be treated fairly and gracefully, but shall be accorded respect to the ‘Dignity and worth of the human person’ [CO: 1981: Founding Principle (a)]. Among the offices constitutionally identified are; (i) ‘…Permanent Secretary; (ii)Office of Magistrates; (iii) …Registrars of the High Court; (iv) …Legal officers within the office of the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions’ [Sections 100 (3): 101 and 103]. There shall be no reason for those with responsibility for ‘Disciplinary Control’ of persons in these offices not to be positioned to make ‘Informed Decisions.’ There shall also be no reason for any decision=maker to be seen as administratively incompetent or seen as ‘…Square pegs in round holes’ [Pointe FM: Prime Minister Gaston Browne].***

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]