OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA
By Malaka Parker
On the Prime Minister’s Defamation Claims and in the Defence of Free Speech
Date: November 30 2025
Dear Fellow Citizens,
I write as a proud Antiguan and Barbudan, a former Senator under the United Progressive Party, and former Parliamentary Secretary in the Ministry of Health, Social Transformation, Consumer Affairs, and Local Government.
I have had the honour of serving as President of the Antigua and Barbuda Workers’ Union (ABWU), President of Union International (UNI) Youth of the Americas (encompassing Canada, the United States, Central and South America, and the Caribbean), Member of the UNI Global Union Board of Directors, and ABWU representative to the International Labour Organization (ILO).
I have also served as Policy Advisor to the Head of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and as a Regional Development Consultant to UNICEF and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), among others.
I am a UN published author whose works have been cited by researchers and consultants globally. As a consultant to international development agencies, I have worked with several regional and extra-regional governments. As Executive Director of the Caribbean Network on Population and Development, I was part of the team that helped shape the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – now the core benchmark of the global development agenda.
I have moderated, chaired, and addressed numerous international conferences on a range of issues including youth inclusion, gender, population policy, labour, sustainable development, and good governance among others.
I hold an LL.B (Bachelor of Laws) and an M.Sc. in Development Studies, and will soon be called to the Bar of England and Wales. But above all, I have always been a reformer, observer, and advocate for fairness, justice, and accountability in public life.
I write today in response to a Pre-Action Letter dated November 26, 2025, issued by Rika Bird & Associates on behalf of the Honourable Gaston Browne, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda. The letter alleges defamation, demands the removal of online posts, retractions, public apologies, and an astonishing USD $10 million in damages.
While I do not speak for the persons named in that correspondence, nor as a legal luminary, permit me to speak as a citizen and public advocate deeply concerned by its implications for democracy and free expression. I also couple my critique of this letter with concern about the Prime Minister’s increasing bullying, threats, and legal intimidation of citizens, including the forced retraction of statements made by a private citizen on social media in March 2025.
I find the document legally defective and factually hollow. It fails to establish the essential elements of defamation under Antiguan (and presumptively U.S.) law, and appears incapable of defeating the recognised defences available in such cases. Simply listing media publications that repeated speech is not proof it is false or defamatory. More troublingly, it bears all the hallmarks of an attempt to silence critics and chill legitimate public debate. It reads less like a legal pleading and more like a political press release dressed in legal robes. It is, quite frankly, an abuse of the role of defamation law in our democracy.
My people, a defamation claim is not a verdict on the truth; it merely alleges harm to one’s reputation. Do not be fooled. When such a suit is threatened before the facts of the underlying issue (in this case, the Alfa Nero sale) have been disclosed, it is premature, defensive, and deeply suspect. Then, If truth is pleaded as a defence by those the Prime Minister seeks to sue, then the substantial matter itself must be tested. That creates a circular dance, especially when the Prime Minister continues to withhold the very evidence the public seeks.
In short, to threaten defamation before explaining the facts is to call the referee before the game begins.
Antiguans and Barbudans, residents all, do not be distracted, do not be intimidated, do not be silenced. Let the U.S. courts determine their narrow issue, but know this: our democracy and our courts recognise that political expression, especially about public funds, government conduct, corruption, and transparency, must be afforded the highest level of protection.
Public officials must tolerate a broader range of criticism than private citizens. Exaggeration or harsh language does not remove protection when speech concerns public affairs. Statements that are: clearly recognised as opinion, not fact; based on public or credible material; concerned with matters of public interest; and not actuated by malice,
are all legally protected.
Additionally, the defence of Public Interest/Responsible Communication protects journalists, citizens, and commentators who speak in good faith, relying on public information and acting responsibly as watchdogs of democracy. Most importantly, you ought to know that truth remains a defence. If the core of a statement is substantially accurate, even if some details are disputed it is unlikely yo be defamatory.
Fellow citizens and residents, know that, political speech is both a right and a civic duty. You have a moral and constitutional obligation to communicate concerns, and the public has a corresponding right to hear them. Any use of defamation law to stifle that exchange contradicts our Constitution’s guarantee of free expression, and we must resist this. If not for our sake, the for our children’s sake.
Mr. Prime Minister, your pre-action letter is not a defence of reputation, it is a display of panic. It seeks to weaponise the law to chill speech, rather than engage with the truth. If you are genuinely committed to transparency, the solution is simple: publish the full documentation and contracts surrounding the Alfa Nero sale. Bring the evidence.
Let the facts speak.
Let the record show.
That is how you silence speculation – not with lawsuits, but with disclosure.
Until then, the people have a right, and indeed a duty, to ask questions, knowing that a government that threatens its critics instead of explaining itself reveals more than it conceals.
So, my fellow citizens: free speech is not a favour, it is a right. Do not be intimidated by legal letters or political noise.Your right to speak is not granted by any Prime Minister; it is guaranteed by the Constitution. Public accountability is not defamation, it is democratic hygiene and truth is not decided by who has the louder lawyer or the deeper pocket; it is proven by evidence. We shall adopt the position that those who use the courts to suppress scrutiny forfeit the moral authority to lead.
As for all my positions and titles listed here, I hope the Prime Minister will remember, recognise, and respect the local, regional, and international organisations with which many of us are equally affiliated, and accordingly temper his language and that of his phycophants, curtailing vile, vulgar, and actual defamatory attacks on other political actors.
My people, SPEAK. History will remember not the noise of those in power, but the courage of those who refused to be silenced.
Respectfully and with love,
Malaka Parker
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
This is a letter writer who demonstrates what My mother used to say: you miss your morning and now trying to gain the night. The one who has ears to hear must hear!!!!
@Malaka Parker….. With all of the accolades you showered on yourself in the preamble of your letter, not even once did you allude to the dictum that free speech is NOT the freedom to say anything. Free speech comes with RESPONSIBILITY. Freedom of speech is NOT the right to say anything, that is why there is such a thing a DEFAMATION.
While it is true that free speech is a RIGHT, that right is constrained by the rights of others to take action when your freedom of speech infringes on someone else’s fundamental rights and freedoms. Not acknowledging this simple fact makes you, Malaka, look clownish and immature.
Following your logic in this letter, I guess it would be okay for me to ask if the kids really belong to the man whose surname they bear. Don’t sue me as I’m just asking a question, Malaka.