CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHAT’S APP GROUP
HIGH COURT ORDERS ABDF TO CONDUCT DISCIPLINARY HEARING IN 24 HOURS
A High Court Criminal Judge yesterday ordered the Antigua Barbuda Defence Force hierarchy to execute a disciplinary hearing within 24 hours or face sanctions for failing to comply.
The ABDF alleges that Private Soldier Claudian Chapman had been absent without leave (AWOL) since October 2024. On May 16, 2025, Chapman was taken into custody, brought to Camp Blizard, and placed in the on-base prison, where he has been kept ever since.
On May 23, 2025, Chapman filed a writ of Habeas Corpus in the High Court, alleging that the ABDF held him in detention unlawfully and that he should be released pending his disciplinary hearing.
The matter came up for hearing at the High Court on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, but the ABDF was not prepared to argue its position, resulting in the matter being rescheduled to yesterday.
During yesterday’s hearing, the ABDF argued that it held Chapman in custody out of fear that he would abscond. However, the ABDF said it was ready to proceed with internal adjudication without further delay, and Chapman stated that he was prepared to defend the allegations against him.
That being the case, the Judge ordered that the matter be heard within 24 hours.
We understand that the internal trial is set for 8:00 AM today, where, if found guilty, Chapman could face up to three months in prison, a fine, or dismissal from the ABDF.
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]
What did he do? Just abscond?
Well, look drama now! The court nuh play when it come to justice.
24 hours? That sound serious. Something big must be behind this.
Mi glad the court stepping in. Discipline must go both ways—top to bottom.
Dis show say even the army can’t move slow when people rights involved.
Honestly I can’t see where this makes sense,
You have someone detained for over a year, and after trial if the person is founded guilty for whatever offense he has committed he will be sentence for 3 months.
Make that make sense, they said that their reason for holding him is out of fear, so tell me something, after the three months that fear they fear him will change?
This is a joke.
All them do is bring Down YOUNG PPL that a try keep off the streets. Them just rob, rape and destroy. Know how much ppl 🤑 them no pay all now
Hmmmmm!!!!!
The order of the court doesn’t address the Habeas Corpus.
It should definitively determine if the plaintiff was or was not illegally held.
That would pave the way for assessment of damages or bring finality to the matter of legality of his detention.
The ruling despite ordering swift determination of disciplinary charges has not answered the question which he asked the court to determine.
Court setting real precedent here. Can’t delay discipline when justice at stake.
From the minute court step in, you know something get mishandled.
Mi just want justice serve clean and clear. No cover-up ting!
ABDF need to modernize how dem handle complaints and discipline. This 2025, not 1985.
Mi proud of the High Court for acting quick. It show the system still have teeth.
All i know no one is above the law, whether you are a soldier or a police…
yup! plus GAD NAR SLEEP!
JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED…….
@straight Shooter
You are absolutely correct. There’s been a grave miscarriage of justice. The order granted fits more with judicial review relief mandating the respondent to do something.
The question of the lawfulness of the detention remains hanging. And, this situation may result in a similar action because the parties are not clear, at this point, if the detention was lawful or unlawful.
This is why a lot of high court decisions are being overturned on review.
Did he walk out of court free?
Is slavery not illegal according to our constitution?
How can a work place imprison someone who wants to quit their job?
Breach of employment contract can result in loss accrued benefit, however imprisonment is certainly unconstitutional.
Wilock check it out.
WHAT THE HELL…! …ORDERS MILITARY COMMAND TO HOLD DISCIPLINARY HEARING…?
***
@ STRAIGHT SHOOTER:
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
***
ACCORDING DUE RESPECT TO THE JUDICIARY, IT VERY MUCH SEEMS THAT THE COURT ‘…STEPPED OUT OF ITS JURISDICTION’ ONTO ‘…MILITARY TERRITORY.’
***
ESTABLISHED PRECEDENCE:
NO ‘…MILITARY COMMANDER’ SHALL ALLOW SUCH ‘…PRECEDENCE TO BE ESTABLISHED.’
***
THE ISSUE: WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS:
***
NOW:
FROM THIS NEWS STORY, SEEMINGLY, THE ISSUE HAS NEITHER BEEN ABOUT:
(a) ‘….DISCIPLINARY TRIAL OF THE ALLEGED ‘..AWOL SOLDIER: nor
(b) …DELAYED DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM.’
***
THAT SUGGESTIVELY PLACED BEFORE THE COURT WAS:
(i) …HIS DETENTION FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD: hence
(ii) …THERE SHALL HAVE BEEN A DETERMINATION AS TO:
(a) …JUSTIFICATION: and
(b) …LAWFULNES OF DETENTION:
THESE ARE JUST WHAT ‘…WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS’ ARE ALL ABOUT.
***
LOGICAL RULING
EVEN WITH SUSPECT ‘…JURISDICTION’ OVER THIS PARTICULAR MATTER, THE MOST ‘…LOGICAL RULING MAY HAVE BEEN A ‘…COURT ORDERING RELEASE’ OF THE ALLEGED ‘…AWOL SOLDIER FROM DETTENTION.’
***
F-R-A-U-D REPRESENTATION:
CLEARLY, WHOEVER REPRESENTED THE ‘…ABDF,’ HE/SHE IS A ‘…F-R-A-U-D.’
***
STARVED FOR KNOWLEDGE: …WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS:
SOMEBODY APPEARS ‘…STARVED FOR KNOWLEDGE OF JUST WHAT A ‘… WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS’ IS ABOUT.’
WHY…?
(a) ‘…EXCEPT FOR AN ACT OF CRIMINALITY, NO ‘…COURT OF CIVIL JURISDICTION’ HAS JUDICIAL DOMINION OVER:
(i) ‘…MILITARY COMMANDERS: and
(ii) …MILITARY DISCIPLINARY AFFAIRS-
(a) …REMUNERATION:
(b) …PROMOTION: or
(b) …TRANSFER.
(c) …INSTITUTION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS: and
(d) …DATE AND TIME FOR TRIAL.
***
CONSTITUTION ORDER:
(b) …OUTSIDE OF THE MILITARY, EXCEPT FOR A PERSON ‘…HELD IN DETENTION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT BEYOND ‘…48- HOURS,’ [CO: 1981: SECTION 5 (5) (b)].
***
GIVEN THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, IT APPEARS THAT NO ‘…CIVIL COURT’ HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE ‘…MILITARY TO ‘ORDER THE BODY SO DETAINED TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE CIVIL OR CONSTITUTIONAL COURT.’
***
JUST AS THE ALLEGED ‘…AWOL SOLDIER’ HAS DONE, A ‘…COMMANDER’ MIGHT VERY WELL WISH TO CAUSE THE ‘…ST. LUCIA-HEADQUARTERED, BUT ‘…ITINERENT EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT (ECSC) …APPELLATE COURT,’ TO BE VISITED UPON SUCH ‘DECISION.’
***
MILITARY DISCIPLINE SHALL BE MAINTAINED.
WHETHER OR NOT PROPERLY ‘…LEGALLY ADVISED,’ IT APPEARS THAT THIS SOLDIER HAS PLACED HIS:
(a) ‘…MILITARY SERVICE: and
(b) …MEMBERSHIP’ IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY IN BEING ‘…DISHONOURABLY DISCHARGED.’
***
WHAT THE HELL…!
***
LESSONS FOR OTHERS WITH SIMILAR TRAITS: …PROPENSITY AND …MENTALITY.’
***
AVOID MILITARY WORRIES. BEHAVE SOLDIERLY.
***
If he is charged disciplinary and found guilty, time spent in unlawful confinement, must be deducted. Therefore, there will be no more jail for him. AWOL is a serious offence base on military Law but Justice must be serve so that his rights are not violated. ABDF seems to be doing what they feel like with the soldiers rights to justice. See how they treated officer Willock. He had to go through hells to get justice.