Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua and Barbuda has come under sustained criticism from regional legal bodies after warning an unnamed sitting judge that he could be declared persona non grata and deported over what the Prime Minister described as a pattern of lenient sentencing in criminal cases.

The remarks were made on August 10 during a local National Security meeting, where Browne addressed the judge directly. According to accounts of the meeting, Browne said: “Brother man, if you cannot follow the lead of parliament to give longer sentences, leave our country voluntarily otherwise we are going to deport you and make you persona non grata.”

Browne accused the judge of having “a propensity to give criminals a break” and criticised what he called short prison sentences for gun-related offences, despite legislation intended to impose tougher penalties. He also took aim more broadly at what he termed “libertarian policies to protect the constitutional and human rights of hardened criminals,” calling them a significant impediment to fighting crime.

Browne cited figures he said underscored the scale of the problem, including 474 repeat offenders he described as roaming the streets with impunity, many out on bail. He said firearm-related crime had increased by roughly a third this year, and he called on the regional judiciary to “act urgently” to realign sentencing guidelines, including mandatory minimum jail time for gun crimes.

Backlash to statements

The comments drew swift condemnation. The Antigua and Barbuda Bar Association issued a three-page statement expressing “deep concern” and calling on Browne to formally withdraw the threat and affirm that executive power would not be used to influence, intimidate, punish or remove a judicial officer over decisions made in the lawful exercise of their office.

The Commonwealth Lawyers Association followed with its own statement, saying the remarks amounted to a serious threat to judicial independence and could damage public confidence in the administration of justice, while noting it supported Browne’s separate proposal for an independent review of firearm sentencing.

On August 12, the Caribbean Heads of Judiciary issued a joint statement describing Browne’s comments as a threat to the independence of the judiciary and warning that they risked eroding the separation of powers. The statement noted that Browne had referenced, without naming, “a particular judge” he considered to have “a propensity to give criminals a break.”

“A last resort warning”

Browne rejected the criticism and declined to fully retract the remarks. In a written response to the Heads of Judiciary on August 13, he said: “I have taken careful note of the Joint Statement… I respect the constitutional office held by each signatory and I reaffirm, without qualification, the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary.” He added that judicial independence “does not place judicial decisions or the administration of justice beyond reasoned public criticism,” nor does it require an elected government to stay silent on sentencing outcomes that raise public safety concerns.

He later described his comments as a “last resort warning,” maintaining that he was not seeking to direct the outcome of any case, reopen a decided matter, or encourage anyone to disregard a court order.

Browne also wrote to Chief Justice Margaret Price-Findlay proposing an independent review of firearm sentencing, repeat offending, and the wider criminal justice system. In a subsequent public address, he indicated Parliament would move to set minimum penalties for “heinous” gun and sexual crimes, though judges would retain discretion to sentence below the minimum if they could justify the decision.

Government’s position

On August 17, the government issued a further statement through Foreign Affairs Minister E.P. Chet Greene reaffirming its commitment to judicial independence and to the Commonwealth’s Latimer House Principles. Greene said critics had not accounted for the complete official record, including Browne’s later clarifications, and stressed that the government had not defied any court order or sought to determine a case outcome. The statement noted Browne’s clarification that no judge would be removed, reassigned, deported, or otherwise subject to executive action.

Separately, Communications and Administration Specialist Kieron Murdoch publicly criticised the prime minister, saying Browne had threatened a sitting judge with deportation over decisions made in a judicial capacity.

As of this week, Browne has not issued the unambiguous, written apology that critics have called for. The independent review of sentencing that Browne proposed to the Chief Justice has not yet been confirmed as accepted, and commentators have suggested any jurists asked to lead it should make their involvement contingent on a formal apology to the judiciary.