The High Court erupted earlier today as Justice Rene Williams publicly reprimanded the Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force (ABDF) hierarchy for presenting false information that led to an erroneous ruling against Captain Willock.
The ABDF has earlier told the court that Sergeant Manyakie Edwards, a witness Willock intended to cross-examine, was in China when he was not.
Willock raised the alarm, informing the court that Edwards was in the USA on military training.
Therefore, the time difference and communication challenges complained about by the ABDF were immaterial to Edwards’ availability.
In unusually sharp remarks from the bench today, Justice Williams declared that the ABDF’s misinformation had brought the court into disrepute, which turned out to be highly embarrassing to the judicial process.
The judge sternly cautioned the military command to fact-check all submissions made before the court going forward.
As a result of this entire ordeal, the judge ordered the ABDF to pay $1,500 in costs to Willock within 21 days, and an additional $300 in costs to the Court Office within 7 days.
The Judge who earlier imposed a cost of $750 against Willock, based on erroneous information provided by ABDF, advised the parties to settle the matter among themselves.
In a shock turn, Willock, who represented himself, brought in Wendel Alexander, Attorney-at-Law, to address an application already before the court asking the judge to step down so another judge can hear the matter.
Mr Alexander argued that Willock was of the view that the learned judge had conducted the proceedings in a manner that could cause a fair-minded and informed observer to perceive bias.
For this reason, the judge should recuse himself. The ABDF has vigorously opposed the recusal application, maintaining that the judge has acted impartially and should continue to hear the case.
Justice Williams has given both parties time to obtain and review the official court transcripts, since the claims of apparent bias stem from previous hearings.
The court is expected to reconvene in February to verify the records and determine whether a full hearing on the recusal application will proceed.
This unfolding legal battle has drawn widespread public attention, raising broader questions about accountability within the Defence Force and the delicate balance between military authority and judicial independence.
