LETTER: Jamaica, When you can’t ketch Kwaku!

Anthony Armstrong

The Jamaicans have a saying, “When you can’t ketch Kwaku you ketch him jacket” and clearly this is what has happened to our dear DPP whom his own people tried to “ketch!” That all the substantive accusations were dismissed or dropped except for the “jacket” of the matter appears to suggest some kind of plantation bad-mindedness towards the gentleman which could not stick so his basic character had to be tarnished. This is the epitome of Caribbean Justice!

We in Antigua have had the DPP in position for many years, having been appointed to the position by the UPP administration with whom he worked assiduously but quietly, not ever interfering or even voicing his opinion except for arguing law in the halls of Justice.


A quiet unobtrusive gentleman who clearly had swallowed many law books which made him easily recall laws and torts and all those words which send lawyers running to their libraries for their Law Reviews, Antigua’s DPP offered his qualified opinions when asked and to all who asked.

Recently, politics has begun to hound the Chambers of the DPP as both political parties begin prepping for the 2023 election which seems to be slated for this year. Not so long ago the decision by the DPP to seek a further decision on the matter of the Buses and the three UPP Executives has seen all the good he has done for both UPP and ABLP tossed out the window, as his job required him to close the small opening for misuse of state property by the UPP overlooked by the judge.

He must have realized that this misdemeanor had now opened to cavernous proportions by the ABLP, where highly valuable public assets like land and property were being converted to private use by politicians and their families.


The DPP saw where this was leading and required the Appeal Court to put a stop to politicians thinking they have the authority to use and abuse public property however insignificant, like converting public bus use to constituency use, and worse, government lands to private ownership by politicians.

The DPP has weathered the change of leadership and the political adversity of our torn 108 sq mile island, and as ‘he bang water cum yah’ he has been wise enough to work six days a week and take his Sabbath on the day ordained by his faith.


He has been good to Antigua & Barbuda, and is only when politics stirs up that his name may be heard from the lips of the politicos.


If Jamaica wants to eat its own, as we all were taught to do for hundreds of years, let them come to Antigua and find reason to attack Antigua’s DPP who has served us well, both UPP & ABLP.

Jamaica tek Kwaku jacket an gwarn!

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


  1. The writer of this letter should speak for themselves. I for one lost respect for this man, after the IHI matter and is handling of the passport matter, involving the current AG.
    If that was not enough, we see how overzealous he has been with this old bus case, despite losing on several occasions.

  2. A well written and interesting take on the DPP Armstrong, and how he has performed in this capacity.

    However, why should he be excused for committing (MISCONDUCT)? Isn’t his job to prosecute criminals, no matter the type of crime which they commit?

  3. Did you read what the case against him was about, seems like as the attorney, it was charged that while his client was imprisoned in the USA he sold some of his properties unknowingly to the owner/ client

    • The commitee made clear the accsations that the claimant did not know the land was being sold his false. They agreed the claimant signed the transfer document. This they aagreed with based on forensic testimony. They also agreed the Armstrong verified the clamangtmsigned via phone. Why they ruled against Armstong was they said he did not witness the signing in person

    • Correction The commitee made clear the accsations that the claimant did not know the land was being sold was false. They agreed the claimant signed the transfer document. This they agreed with based on forensic testimony (handwriting expert). They also agreed that Armstrong verified the clamant signed via a phone call to the clamaint. Why they ruled against Armstong (they did find this was not fraud) was they said he did not witness the signing in person.

Comments are closed.