A senior officer of the Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force (ABDF), Captain Javonson Willock, has asked the High Court to intervene in what he describes as a sustained pattern of targeted ill-treatment and an ongoing conflict of interest.
Captain Willock has filed an urgent application seeking an interim order restraining Lieutenant Colonel Alando Michael from exercising any disciplinary, administrative, supervisory, or command authority over him, pending the outcome of the legal proceedings already before the court. He is also requesting that the court direct that all administrative and welfare matters concerning him be handled by an officer who is not a witness, investigator, or legal adviser in the case.
According to Willock, Lieutenant Colonel Michael occupies multiple and overlapping roles, acting simultaneously as the ABDF’s principal legal adviser, a material witness whose credibility will be challenged in court, and his Commanding Officer. Willock contends that this arrangement creates not only a real and apparent conflict of interest but has also facilitated continued personal targeting.
Willock alleges that after he raised formal objections in early December 2025 to Michael assuming command during his substantive commanding officer’s leave, he was nonetheless placed under Michael’s authority despite written complaints and follow-up correspondence through internal channels. He claims those objections were ignored, leaving Michael with direct control over decisions affecting his duties, welfare, and career.
Willock further alleges that this situation forms part of a broader pattern of ill-treatment, characterized by adverse administrative actions, the persistence of disciplinary control by a conflicted officer, and continued exposure to decision-making by a person who is both an accuser and a witness in proceedings against him.
In one recent incident, Michael was rebuked after providing inaccurate information to the court, which resulted in adverse consequences for Willock. Despite this, Michael allegedly retained authority over him, deepening concerns about fairness, retaliation, and the integrity of the disciplinary process.
Willock argues that the continued exercise of authority by Michael while litigation is ongoing undermines natural justice and places him in an untenable position to be victimized by Michael, who is his legal adversary.
