Cross-Examination Raises Serious Questions About Selective Discipline Within the ABDF

A dramatic day of cross-examination unfolded in the High Court yesterday in the ongoing misfeasance in public office claim against senior officials of the Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force.

The testimony of Sergeant (Sgt) Manyakie Edwards and Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Alando Michael exposed inconsistencies, unexplained delay, and troubling disparities in the handling of disciplinary proceedings dating back to an alleged incident on August 14, 2020.

Under cross-examination by Captain (Capt) Willock, Edwards confirmed that he submitted an affidavit and had provided a witness statement in January 2024 in relation to the 2020 incident. Under oath, he admitted that he was present at the event, all participants were sexually active, himself included, and no one appeared uncomfortable.

He further confirmed that the investigating officer, Capt Karl Jarvis, concluded the allegations were credible and recommended disciplinary action against all participants. Yet, Edwards acknowledged that he was never charged, brought before a tribunal, denied promotion, or denied training opportunities. In contrast, Willock was served with six charge sheets based on the same incident.

The Court also heard that in an audio recording played in the office of Lt Col Dalton Graham, Edwards stated that he never saw Willock participate in any sexual act. Despite admitting that the voice in the audio recording was his, Edwards maintains that the information given in his written witness statement in January 2024 is what he intends to be bound by.

When Willock put to him that the allegation had been concocted by Lt Col Pennyfeather and himself to destroy the claimant’s career, he disagreed, but only after a long pause and judicial prompting.

Under cross-examination by Willock, Lt Col Michael, the Staff Judge Advocate, confirmed that the investigation concluded in January 2024. By that time, all evidence had been gathered, and no new complainants were introduced against Willock. Yet, no charge sheets were issued until December 2024, an eleven-month delay.

Michael agreed that there is no written policy requiring such an extraordinary delay, no written explanation was provided to Willock, no tribunal was convened, and the charges remain unprosecuted to date. Michael accepted that disciplinary matters should be dealt with promptly and that disciplinary decisions affect rank, promotion, pay, and reputation. However, he denied that there was nothing preventing the prosecution of the charges, and the delay was ABDF’s decision.

When Willock asked Michael if leaving someone under a charge for a disciplinary infraction for over two years without prosecuting the case could cause stress and anxiety, Michael said no.

Michael agreed there was nowhere in the investigative report recommending that charges be brought only against Willock. He further agreed that Edwards was never charged, and no written explanation exists for the difference in treatment. Michael agreed that charging only the claimant creates the appearance of targeting. Yet, he denied that it raises concerns of abuse of power.

The Court must now determine whether the ABDF’s decision to charge Willock while others remain untouched, the failure to prosecute the charge within a reasonable time, and the contradictions in witness evidence amount to mere administrative irregularity, or something more serious.

Capt Willock continues to represent himself while the ABDF is being represented by three Crown Counsel. The parties are set to give oral closing arguments tomorrow.

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