IN an unprecedented joint statement, the Caribbean Heads of Judiciary have strongly condemned remarks made by Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister, Gaston Browne, characterising his public attack on a member of the judiciary as a dangerous threat to judicial independence and the rule of law.
The rebuke comes in response to media statements delivered by Prime Minister Browne on August 10, 2026, in which he expressed dissatisfaction with criminal sentencing. Referring without name to a “particular judge” whom he accused of having a “propensity to give criminals a break,” Browne suggested that if the judge failed to “follow the lead of the parliament to give longer sentences,” he should leave the country voluntarily or face deportation and be declared persona non grata.
In their joint declaration issued Wednesday, August 12, 2026, the region’s top judicial leaders voiced “deep and unsettling concern” over the Prime Minister’s comments, warning that such attacks directly threaten the separation of powers foundational to democratic governance.
“Not only are such statements regrettable, but they are a threat to the very independence of the judiciary,” the Heads of Judiciary stated. “They have the potential to erode and weaken the efficacy of the doctrine of separation of powers, which is the very bedrock upon which democratic governance rests.”
The judicial leaders emphasised that mutual respect among the three co-equal arms of state, the Judiciary, the Executive, and the Legislature, is essential for maintaining public confidence in the justice system. They denounced the Prime Minister’s remarks as “unproductive and dangerous.”
Addressing executive concerns over court rulings, the statement noted that lawful and established channels exist to address sentences deemed unduly lenient. The judges highlighted that the state’s legitimate recourse is to file an appeal through the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the region’s apex courts, either the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
While acknowledging that public discussion and constructive criticism are healthy components of a democratic society, the judicial heads maintained that such commentary must remain grounded in respect. The judiciary reaffirmed its commitment to discharging its constitutional duties “impartially, independently, and without fear or favour.”