The Cabinet of Antigua and Barbuda has accused members of the opposition of supplying unsubstantiated information to a U.S. investigator, following a federal court’s decision to stay subpoenas linked to a legal matter involving the country’s leadership.
Speaking during Thursday’s post-Cabinet briefing, Chief of Staff Ambassador Lionel Hurst welcomed the decision by a New York federal judge to halt the subpoenas, which had been sought based on a 68-page report submitted by an investigator acting on behalf of a U.S.-based claimant. According to Hurst, the judge determined that the claims amounted to a “fishing expedition” lacking credible evidence.
“They didn’t have any solid proof—just hearsay,” Hurst said, noting that the investigator cited anonymous sources and made broad allegations without supporting documentation. “In a court of law, that sort of evidence does not stand.”
The government had submitted a 32-page rebuttal through its legal team, challenging the basis of the subpoenas and raising concerns over the use of unsworn, second-hand allegations. The federal court has now given the claimant until 21 April to respond, after which the stay could become permanent if no further action is taken.
Hurst reiterated the Cabinet’s view that the effort was politically motivated and orchestrated with help from the opposition. “This looked like harassment and an attempt to embarrass not only the Prime Minister but the country itself,” he said. “False claims were made with the support of operatives from the opposition party.”
The subpoenas were linked to a broader legal matter involving financial transactions and allegations of mismanagement, which government officials have consistently denied.
While the court did not rule on the jurisdictional question—whether a U.S. court can compel a sovereign leader to disclose personal records—Hurst noted that this issue remains unresolved but significant. “Can you imagine a court in Antigua demanding the U.S. president open his accounts?” he asked. “It’s simply not done.”
The government’s stance is that the entire process has been tainted by politically charged misinformation. It remains to be seen whether the claimant will proceed with an appeal or let the matter lapse when the April 21 deadline passes.
Meanwhile, Cabinet maintains that its actions have been lawful and transparent and insists that the opposition’s involvement in the affair undermines the country’s image on the international stage.
