Antigua Today

20/06/2026

𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗗𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗖𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗛𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗼𝗮𝗱

A cyclist was taken to hospital early Saturday morning after being struck by a vehicle along Factory Road in what witnesses described as a hit-and-run incident. The accident involved a blue Toyota Vitz and occurred during the early hours of the morning. Eyewitnesses at the scene reported that the force of the impact threw the cyclist from his bicycle, leaving him injured on the roadway. The driver of the Toyota Vitz allegedly fled the scene immediately after the collision without stopping to render assistance. Emergency personnel responded and transported the injured cyclist to hospital for treatment. Police are investigating the incident and are appealing to anyone with information about the vehicle or its driver to come forward.

15/06/2026

Double Standards and the Politics of Convenience

Politics often reveals its true character not when opponents are under scrutiny, but when scrutiny arrives at one's own doorstep.
For years, the United Progressive Party and its affiliated groups have positioned themselves as guardians of accountability, transparency, and moral leadership. They have been vocal in demanding answers from public officials, quick to question judgment, and unwavering in their insistence that those who hold public office must be held to the highest standards.

It is a position many citizens would support. The public has every right to expect that those who seek to lead the country conduct themselves in a manner that inspires confidence. Against that backdrop, the recent controversy involving Opposition Senator Malaka Parker has generated such significant public interest.

The issue is not that Senator Parker has been accused of any crime or whether she should be held legally responsible for the actions of another adult. It is whether the standards that the opposition routinely applies should be applied to itself.

Recent reports concerning the detention and questioning of Senator Parker's longtime partner and campaign manager have inevitably raised public questions. Those questions have become even more pronounced given the individual's previous conviction in a matter involving a minor.
These developments have created a difficult public optics problem.

Senator Parker has established a reputation as a passionate advocate for youth development and social protection. She has spoken forcefully on matters affecting young people and has consistently projected herself as a voice for those who are vulnerable and often overlooked. It is therefore natural to ask how such advocacy sits alongside a longstanding intimate relationship with someone whose conduct has repeatedly attracted serious public concern.

That question is not an accusation or an attempt to assign guilt by association. It is a reflection of a simple reality. Public life invites public scrutiny. Citizens assess not only what politicians say but also the judgment they exercise in their personal and professional relationships.
The UPP has unceasingly challenged public officials based on the company they keep, the advisers they trust, the associates they defend, and the individuals who surround them. The UPP has frequently argued that character, judgment, and associations matter.

If those principles are valid when applied to political opponents, why should they suddenly become off limits when the spotlight shifts to one of their own?

That is where the response from the UPP and the Women's Forum becomes particularly interesting. Instead of acknowledging the legitimate concerns being raised, both organizations moved quickly into defense mode. The narrative was not one of understanding public concern. The focus shifted almost immediately to claims of political finger-pointing.

In doing so, they may have missed the larger issue entirely. This is not about defending Senator Parker. What of the standards the UPP and the Women’s Forum have been insisting should apply as recently as the just concluded general elections? Do those no longer apply?
A political party cannot spend years demanding accountability from others and then retreat behind claims of victimization when similar questions emerge within its own ranks.

Principles are tested when they become inconvenient. Anybody can uphold a standard when it affects an opponent. The true measure of integrity is whether that same standard survives when it affects a friend.

This is why the current debate extends beyond the immediate circumstances. It goes directly to the credibility of the opposition's broader message. If accountability is truly a principle, it must be applied consistently. If associations are relevant in assessing leadership, they cannot become irrelevant simply because the individual under scrutiny belongs to your political tribe. Otherwise, what is presented as principle becomes little more than political convenience.

The UPP and the Women's Forum are entirely within their rights to support Senator Parker. What they cannot reasonably expect is to do so while escaping the very questions they have spent years encouraging the public to ask of others. Can the opposition live by the standards it so often demands from everyone else?

12/06/2026

01/06/2026

𝗭𝗲𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗣𝗮𝘆 𝗚𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲 𝗝𝗿. 𝗘𝗖 $𝟰 𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻

The Prime Minister may have intended to defend his son.

Instead, he may have exposed one of the most troubling examples yet of why public confidence in the relationship between political power and foreign investment continues to erode.

The issue is not the reported EC$2 million profit.
The issue is who was on the other side of the transaction.

According to the Prime Minister's own public explanation, his son became involved in a Long Bay land deal and reportedly earned approximately EC$2 million in profit when the property was sold to the developers behind the Long Bay Zen Resort project.

Had this been an ordinary transaction between private citizens, there would likely be little public interest.

But this was not an ordinary transaction.
The purchaser was not an ordinary buyer.
The reported profit was not insignificant.
And the developers involved are not strangers to Antigua and Barbuda.

These are the same investment interests associated with Fancy Bridge, the company that became intertwined with one of the most controversial economic and political transactions in modern Antiguan history: the restructuring and ownership of the West Indies Oil Company.
Antiguans and Barbudans remember the debates.
They remember the questions.

They remember the controversy surrounding foreign involvement, CIP connections, and the transfer of interests in one of the country's most strategic national assets.

Those questions never fully disappeared.

Now the same names have resurfaced.

Not in connection with WIOC.
Not in connection with a CIP debate.

But in connection with a reported multi-million-dollar profit earned by the son of a sitting Prime Minister.

And the public is expected to believe that this raises no concerns.

That is simply unrealistic.
The Prime Minister appears to view the transaction as evidence of his son's business brilliance.

Many citizens see something entirely different.
They see foreign investors with substantial interests in Antigua and Barbuda.

They see investors who require government approvals, government cooperation, government concessions, and government support.

They see investors who have participated in transactions involving major national assets.
And then they see those same investors engaging in a lucrative transaction with the son of the country's most powerful political figure.

That combination alone should make every citizen uncomfortable.

Not because it proves wrongdoing.
But because it creates the appearance of a relationship that demands scrutiny.

The public is entitled to know:
Why was the Prime Minister's son in this transaction?

How did the relationship with the developers arise?

How was the opportunity presented?

What exactly was paid for the land?

What evidence exists that the acquisition was fully financed before the resale?

How much money was actually invested?

How much money was actually received?

And why should the public simply accept the transaction at face value without documentation?

These are not unreasonable questions.

In fact, they are the minimum questions that should be asked whenever the family of a sitting Prime Minister becomes involved in a lucrative business arrangement with foreign investors whose commercial success depends heavily on decisions made by the State.

The Prime Minister may argue that his son is a private citizen.

Technically, that is true.

But the son of a sitting Prime Minister is not viewed by foreign investors as just another private citizen.

That is reality.

Influence has value.

Access has value.

Relationships have value.

And that is precisely why democracies insist upon transparency.

The concern is not merely whether a profit was made.

The concern is whether foreign investors seeking to do business in Antigua and Barbuda should ever find themselves in a position where they are enriching the immediate family of the nation's leader.

That is the issue.

That is the concern.

And that is why this matter will not simply disappear.

Because the public is not only asking whether the transaction was legal.

The public is asking whether it was appropriate.

Whether it was ethical.

Whether it was wise.

And whether it reflects the standard of conduct that citizens should expect from those closest to political power.

The Prime Minister's explanation may have answered some questions.

But it created an even bigger one.

Why are the same foreign investment interests that have repeatedly found themselves at the center of major national transactions now involved in a deal that reportedly generated a substantial private profit for the Prime Minister's son?

Until that question is answered with complete transparency, public concern will remain.

And it should.

29/05/2026

ST. JOHN’S, Antigua and Barbuda – 29th May 2026.

Prime Minister the Rt. Hon. Gaston Browne has reaffirmed his government’s commitment to attracting more high-end luxury hotel developments to Antigua and Barbuda, describing the model as one that benefits investors, workers, and the country alike.

Speaking on Thursday at Long Bay during the official groundbreaking ceremony for the US$200 million Long Bay Zen Resort, Prime Minister Browne said the Government’s tourism strategy is increasingly focused on premium luxury developments that can generate higher economic returns while providing improved wages and opportunities for local workers.

According to the Prime Minister, Antigua and Barbuda must continue positioning itself as a premier luxury tourism destination capable of attracting affluent travelers willing to pay premium rates for exceptional experiences and world-class amenities.
“This is where we want them to go; offer service at a premium while at the same time take care of the staff. We want to pursue our development in an integrated way and we want to ensure that these luxury properties can operate profitably while at the same time ensure the staff are well paid,” Browne stated.
He explained that the new Long Bay Zen Resort is being developed along the lines of internationally recognized luxury properties such as Hermitage Bay, where nightly room rates can exceed US$3,000. However, Browne suggested that the new development, with its extensive amenities and unique offerings, may command even higher nightly rates upon completion.
The Prime Minister reiterated his administration’s philosophy that employees within the tourism sector must receive wages capable of supporting a dignified standard of living, particularly as the Government prepares to introduce a national lifestyle minimum wage.
“We want to make sure that when you work in the sector you can at least afford the basic mortgage. I believe that those who work in this hotel property will be properly remunerated so that they can afford a small mortgage to take care of themselves and their families,” he said.
Prime Minister Browne also gave the project his Government’s “full endorsement,” while commending principal investor Sophie Zhong for her continued confidence and commitment to Antigua and Barbuda despite global financial uncertainties.
He revealed that although the developers experienced setbacks linked to investments in a financial institution facing challenges abroad, they nevertheless introduced new capital into Antigua and Barbuda to move forward with the Long Bay project.
“That’s what you call real commitment,” the Prime Minister declared.
The groundbreaking ceremony marked another significant step in Antigua and Barbuda’s Vision 2030 tourism and national development agenda, which seeks to diversify the tourism product while promoting sustainable economic growth and expanding investment opportunities.
Minister of Tourism, Civil Aviation, Transportation and Investment, the Hon. Charles Fernandez, described the project as transformative and fully aligned with the country’s evolving tourism strategy.
“This project represents a new direction for tourism in Antigua and Barbuda,” Minister Fernandez stated. “Long Bay Zen Resort embodies the evolving demands of the modern traveler — one who seeks more than just accommodation, but experience, wellness, authenticity, tranquility and connection.”
Minister Fernandez noted that the development comes at a strategic time as Antigua and Barbuda continues to expand airlift capacity and strengthen tourism infrastructure to accommodate increasing visitor arrivals.
“As our airport expansion continues and as we aggressively pursue increased airlift and new international routes into Antigua and Barbuda, the demand for quality room stock continues to grow. Developments such as this position us strongly for the future,” he explained.
The Tourism Minister further emphasized that the project forms part of the Government’s broader Tourism Vision 2030 strategy centered on sustainability, innovation, community involvement, and long-term economic resilience.
Developer Sophie Zhong described Long Bay Zen Resort as a direct response to Prime Minister Browne’s vision of transforming Antigua and Barbuda into a “Smart Island” destination driven by sustainability, renewable energy, climate resilience, and modern technology.
“Antigua and Barbuda is already a champion of sustainable tourism. Prime Minister Browne has taken that further. He has set a bold vision for a Smart Island future — where renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and climate resilience shape how this nation welcomes the world. Long Bay Zen Resort is our answer to that call,” Zhong stated.
The resort will feature 113 luxury accommodations designed around the concept of “quiet luxury,” emphasizing understated elegance, wellness, privacy, and harmony with the surrounding natural environment.
“With rising visitor numbers and record air connectivity, demand for the very best Antigua has to offer has never been stronger. We are responding with 113 luxury keys, built in the spirit of quiet luxury — understated, refined, and deeply connected to this landscape,” Zhong explained.
Among the resort’s signature attractions will be an over-water chapel designed to strengthen Antigua and Barbuda’s growing destination wedding market.
“I believe it will further cement Antigua’s reputation as the Caribbean’s premier destination wedding location,” she added.
Long Bay Zen Resort will also incorporate advanced sustainability measures and smart technologies, including renewable energy systems, low-carbon operational models, intelligent guest-service platforms, and automated transportation solutions.
“At the heart of this resort is our commitment to sustainability. We rely heavily on green energy, with low-carbon operations designed to leave the lightest possible footprint on this protected coastline,” Zhong said.
Construction activity on the project is expected to accelerate in the coming months. Demolition works are already underway, while major construction is scheduled to commence during the fourth quarter of this year.
Upon completion, the development is expected to significantly contribute to employment creation, tourism diversification, foreign direct investment, and Antigua and Barbuda’s continued emergence as one of the Caribbean’s leading luxury tourism destinations. (Ends)

26/05/2026

𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗜𝗻, 𝗢𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗢𝘂𝘁: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘆 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱

The events surrounding the removal of an elected Member of Parliament from the chamber during the Throne Speech ceremony have opened one of the most fascinating constitutional debates Antigua and Barbuda has seen in years. It is a matter that goes beyond politics. It touches the heart of parliamentary democracy, constitutional interpretation, procedural fairness, and the balance between law and symbolism.

At the center of the controversy lies one critical constitutional provision: section 48 of the Constitution of Antigua and Barbuda.

The section states clearly that no member of either House of Parliament shall “take part in the proceedings” of the House until he or she has taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance. On its face, the language appears straightforward. An elected member who has not yet taken the oath cannot participate in parliamentary proceedings. The Constitution imposes a disability until the oath is administered.

Those defending the decision to remove the unsworn MP argue that the matter should end there.

From that perspective, the Throne Speech is not a social event or public ceremony in the ordinary sense. It is a formal proceeding of Parliament. The Governor General delivers the Speech from the Throne to officially open Parliament and outline the Government’s legislative agenda. The ceremony carries constitutional weight. It is not symbolic theater alone. It is a parliamentary proceeding protected by parliamentary rules and constitutional procedures.

Supporters of the removal therefore argue that allowing an unsworn member-elect to remain seated in the chamber, particularly among elected parliamentarians, risks blurring constitutional lines. They maintain that occupying the chamber as an MP is itself participation in parliamentary proceedings. In Westminster systems, presence on the parliamentary benches is not merely physical occupancy. It represents recognition as a functioning member of Parliament.

They further argue that the President of the Senate, as the presiding officer within the Senate chamber during the ceremony, possesses the authority to regulate admission, seating, decorum, and order. Once the President determined that the member had not yet taken the oath, she had both the procedural authority and constitutional obligation to enforce section 48 strictly.

There is also the broader constitutional concern. If unsworn members are allowed to sit freely during proceedings before taking the oath, where is the line drawn? Could they then claim rights to recognition, procedural standing, or symbolic participation? Those defending the removal say constitutional procedures exist precisely to avoid ambiguity. The oath is not ceremonial decoration. It is the legal gateway into parliamentary authority.

Yet despite those arguments, the opposing side raises equally powerful constitutional and democratic concerns.

The first and most obvious issue is legitimacy. The individual removed from the chamber was not a random citizen or political activist. He was a duly elected Member of Parliament chosen by the people. His authority came directly from the electorate. In contrast, several invited guests sitting inside the chamber, including senior officials such as the Chief of Defence Staff and the Commissioner of Police, derived their presence solely through invitation.

This is where the optics and constitutional symbolism become deeply uncomfortable for many observers.

How does an elected representative of the people end up being removed from the chamber while unelected guests remain seated comfortably inside?

That question cuts to the emotional core of the controversy.

Critics argue that section 48 prohibits participation, not mere presence. The Constitution does not expressly state that an unsworn member cannot physically attend proceedings as an observer or guest. It says only that the member cannot “take part” in proceedings before taking the oath.

That distinction is crucial.

If the member had attempted to speak, vote, interrupt proceedings, or exercise parliamentary privileges, removal would have been far easier to justify constitutionally. But if the member was simply sitting quietly in attendance, critics argue the constitutional threshold for removal becomes far less clear.

The controversy deepened even further because the member had reportedly been invited to Parliament by the Clerk of Parliament himself.

That fact changes the procedural landscape dramatically.

The Clerk is not an ordinary administrative assistant. The Clerk is Parliament’s chief procedural officer. An invitation from the Clerk carries institutional significance. Critics argue that once Parliament itself invited the member-elect to attend the ceremony, the member had every reasonable basis to believe he was authorized to be present.

To invite an elected representative into Parliament and then publicly order his removal creates what many see as a procedural contradiction and an avoidable humiliation.

Some constitutional observers have gone even further, suggesting that the removal may have reflected an overly rigid interpretation of section 48. They argue that the Constitution was designed to prevent unsworn members from exercising parliamentary power, not to erase their existence entirely from the parliamentary space.

Others point to Westminster tradition itself. Across Commonwealth jurisdictions, unsworn members have at times been permitted to observe proceedings provided they did not actively participate. In several systems, refusal or delay in taking the oath suspends parliamentary rights but does not necessarily transform the member-elect into a stranger with fewer rights than invited guests.

Ultimately, this controversy reveals a larger truth about constitutional governance: law and legitimacy do not always align neatly.

Legally, there is a respectable argument supporting the President’s authority to remove an unsworn member from active parliamentary proceedings.

But democratically and symbolically, there is also a compelling argument that the elected representative of thousands of citizens should not have been treated as less entitled to remain in the chamber than invited officials and ceremonial guests.

This matter now enters the realm where constitutional law, parliamentary convention, democratic symbolism, and political judgment intersect.

And perhaps that is the real lesson from this episode.

Constitutions do not merely govern procedures. They govern perceptions of fairness, legitimacy, and democratic dignity. Sometimes the most important constitutional questions are not simply about what can legally be done, but whether it should have been done in that manner at all.

05/05/2026

𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

Trevor,

I write to you in good faith and with respect for the responsibility entrusted to you by the people of Barbuda, who have once again placed their confidence in your leadership.

It is precisely because of this renewed mandate that I feel compelled to encourage you to take a more assertive role within the parliamentary opposition. For too long, you have remained on the periphery while the United Progressive Party continues to dictate the leadership of the Opposition in Parliament.

You are, in your own right, a duly elected representative of the opposition, and the current political climate presents a clear opportunity for you to step forward. With the ongoing internal divisions and unresolved struggles within the UPP, there is an evident leadership gap that requires decisive action.

There is no constitutional or moral reason preventing you from assuming the role of Leader of the Opposition in Parliament. In doing so, you would not only provide much-needed direction, but also exercise the authority to appoint five senators an opportunity to help shape a stronger, more balanced legislative body.

Many citizens are expressing fatigue with the current leadership arrangement. There is a growing desire for fresh, effective representation leadership that is visible, decisive, and capable of holding the government accountable. You are in a position to offer that alternative.

Allow Mr. Pringle the space to focus on consolidating leadership within his party, while you take up the mantle of strengthening the opposition in Parliament.

The country deserves a dynamic and functional opposition. At this moment, your leadership could make a meaningful difference.

I urge you to give this matter serious consideration.

Respectfully,

Venirse Abajo

29/04/2026

“𝗞𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻 ‘𝗦𝗵𝘂𝗴𝘆’ 𝗦𝗶𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻”

A major internal rift is threatening to erupt within the United Progressive Party, as Kelvin “𝗦𝗵𝘂𝗴𝘆” Simon is reportedly insisting on being appointed Deputy Prime Minister in any future UPP administration.
According to highly placed sources familiar with internal discussions, Simon has made it clear to members of his inner circle that his continued participation hinges on securing the number two position in government. The demand, insiders say, has been communicated firmly and without ambiguity.
More significantly, sources indicate that Simon has warned he is prepared to take a dramatic step if his condition is not met. The St. Mary’s South candidate is said to be considering breaking ranks, either refusing to show up in support of a UPP government or moving to sit as an independent Member of Parliament if re-elected.

27/04/2026

𝗚𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗲 𝗜𝘀𝗮𝗮𝗰 𝘁𝗼 𝗕𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗕𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗲?

Inside sources have indicated that cracks are beginning to take shape in the fragile unity of the United Progressive Party on the campaign trail, as the Cabinet list has reached beyond the inner circle.

At the center is Jamal Pringle, the political leader and the face of the party, going into any election. But alongside him, Gisele Isaac is expected to play a major role in how a future government would actually function. Based on the discussion, Isaac would be appointed to the Senate, serve as Leader of Government Business in the Upper House, and serve as a Minister of State in the Office of the Prime Minister.

This appointment would place her in a position to manage the government’s business in Parliament and be the chief director of how decisions are carried out at the highest level. In simple terms, while Pringle is elected and sworn in as Prime Minister, Isaac’s executive authority would be significant, determining how the government operates day to day.

Given the ongoing internal challenges, this setup raises some straightforward questions. Who is really in charge when decisions have to be made?
Where does the final say rest? And will the public clearly understand who they are holding accountable?

While these internal arrangements may help the party, the electorate will be looking for clear leadership from those they elect. And Gisele Isaac has refused to come and face the electorate, hiding behind her pen and the sympathy of supporters during media appearances.

Is this kind of government by subterfuge what Antigua and Barbuda deserves? Electing a party that has no confidence in the candidates facing the voters cannot yield any unified team ready to govern.