Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne has used an expletive in an ill-tempered retort to the Bar Association which had called on him to apologise for comments he made about deporting a sitting High Court judge.

In a post on social media on Wednesday, Mr Browne dismissed the lawyers’ request.

He wrote: "Defunct ABBA, here is my response to your request for an apology: P*** off."

The row centres on judicial independence and whether the Executive could pressure judges over sentencing in criminal cases.

The Antigua and Barbuda Bar Association, known as ABBA, had condemned his earlier comments about the unnamed High Court judge. The association said the remarks risked tying judicial decision-making to the wishes of the Executive.

The prime minister argued that judges should take a harder approach to sentencing policy, especially where violent crime was concerned. In his comments, he suggested that if a judge would not impose the kinds of penalties his administration wanted, that judge should leave the country.

ABBA said those remarks were not just intemperate. It said they amounted to a direct threat to judicial independence and an encroachment on the constitutional separation of powers, turning the row into a major constitutional issue.

The association called on Mr Browne to withdraw the deportation threat and to publicly reaffirm that executive or immigration powers would not be used to influence, intimidate or punish a judicial officer. It also wanted a clear statement that judges would remain free to act in the lawful exercise of their office.

The exchange left the dispute unresolved and placed renewed attention on the constitutional boundaries between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary in Antigua and Barbuda. The dispute has wider relevance across Commonwealth Caribbean jurisdictions, where the balance between political criticism and judicial independence remains a recurring constitutional issue.

Lawyers warn of constitutional breach

In its statement, the Bar Association said that Parliament was entitled to prescribe maximum and minimum penalties within constitutional limits. But it said the Executive had no authority to direct judges on the sentences they should impose in individual cases or to threaten judicial officers because of decisions made in the lawful exercise of their office.

The association said that the distinction between legislative power to set sentencing frameworks and judicial discretion in individual cases was a basic constitutional principle. It said Mr Browne’s comments fell "squarely on the wrong side of that line".

ABBA also pointed to wider international standards on the independence of the courts. It cited a 2023 statement from the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, which reaffirmed the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and warned governments to avoid "threats or interference" with judicial decision-making.

Sentencing debate sharpened tensions

The latest clash came against the background of an increasingly contentious debate over sentencing policy, particularly for gun-related offences. Mr Browne has repeatedly argued that the courts should adopt a tougher approach to bail and sentencing in cases involving violent crime.

The Bar Association, meanwhile, has said public criticism must not undermine confidence in the judiciary. It has maintained that the rule of law depends on judges being able to decide cases without pressure from the political branches of government.

ABBA said the Prime Minister’s remarks appeared to blur that boundary. It warned that using immigration or Executive powers as a response to a judicial decision would go beyond lawful criticism and would risk intimidating a judge for doing the job required of the court.

The episode widened an already heated debate over sentencing into a test of the boundaries between political pressure and judicial independence in Antigua and Barbuda. The Bar Association called on Mr Browne to withdraw the threat and reaffirm that executive or immigration powers would not be used to influence a judicial officer.

The dispute also has significance beyond Antigua and Barbuda. Across the Commonwealth Caribbean, judicial independence and the separation of powers are fundamental constitutional principles.

That includes the Cayman Islands, where the Constitution protects the independence of the judiciary and places the administration of justice outside political control.

The row therefore raises a question with resonance across the region: where legitimate political criticism of the courts ends and improper pressure on the judiciary begins.