By Elesha George
Justice Jan Drysdale has reserved her judgement on how much, if at all, Captain Javonson Willock is entitled to in damages, since being charged by the Antigua and Barbuda Defence Force (ABDF) for misconduct as a military officer.
Willock, through his lawyer Wendel Alexander, said the actions taken by the ABDF caused him losses for which he is seeking compensation for loss of earnings, constructive dismissal as well as pain, suffering and emotional distress. He is seeking $42,000 for aggravated damages and $50,000 for exemplary damages.
Among his arguments are that the instruction for him to resign was influenced by “malice and illegality” and that he was denied the right to a fair hearing before being compelled to resign.
When Willock and Lieutenant Colonel Alando Michael, representing the Chief of Defence Staff, testified Monday morning at the High Court, both sides revealed information that the judge now has to consider before making her written judgement.
Willock is adamant that he was constructively dismissed because the ABDF tried to downgrade his employment status. It is only because of a 2023 High Court order that he still works as a captain with the Force.
He also told the court that he believes he should be entitled to the salary of a Major since, if not for the disciplinary charges, he would have become eligible for the rank. In addition, he is seeking money for rental allowance which would have been added on to his base salary because he met the criteria to be employed as a Major officer.
While seeking employment elsewhere, with the threat of being dismissed looming over his head, he claimed to have been turned down for at least two jobs because his potential employers learned of the charges against him.
According to his witness statement, Willock blamed the ABDF for the breakdown of his marriage, alleging that Chief of Defence Staff Lieutenant Colonel Telbert Benjamin had disclosed to the public the particulars of the charges made against him. He said his wife formed the belief that the allegations made in the public domain were true and wanted a divorce as a result.
The defence, however, argued that Willock failed to explicitly identify and produce evidence that the Chief was the one of the many persons spreading the information.
In fact, the defence, represented by attorney Joy Dublin Baptiste, primarily built their case on the fact that the adverse impacts that Willock claimed to have faced was not as a result of him being unable to have legal representation during his disciplinary hearing. Her questions generally attempted to make a connection between his claims and not being afforded representation. Willock, who seemed confused by the line of questioning, told the court that this was not the sole basis for his claim and was one of the lesser claims.
The defence went on to highlight several factors including that Willock has and still is being paid a monthly salary in the rank of captain and that he provided no evidence for several of the claims he made against the ABDF.
Dublin reasoned that because Willock, received a Bachelors Degree with First Class Honours during the time of the ordeal, he could not have had an “inordinate amount of mental stress” and therefore was not entitled to damages.
In response, Willock argued that he had issues eating, sleeping, and coping with his marriage and family life. He said the psychological stress was so overwhelming that he focused his attention on school while neglecting everything else. It was also recommended that he see the Force’s psychologist.
His attorney asserted that at no point did the ABDF dismiss public statements and social media stories that Willock was being investigated for fraternising with junior ranks and orchestrating an “orgy” at the Camp Blizzard base. He was tried on the spot, found guilty, and convicted on six disciplinary charges.
During cross examination, the Lieutenant Colonel disagreed that Willock’s upgrade to Major would have been automatic as upgrades are based on several variables that would affect one’s eligibility. Despite being one of the most senior officers, he said that the captain would not be eligible for upgrades because the process to determine his guilt or innocence is not yet complete.
He shared that after the High Court quashed the ABDF’s original decision to dismiss Willock, it launched a new investigation. He said if Willock is exonerated in these latest proceedings, he would receive upgrades owed.
But the ABDF had not originally considered upgrading Willock and instead had written to Prime Minister Gaston Browne as the head of the Defence Board to dismiss him of his duties even before the court ruling. This meant that Willock would lose his job, pension and retirement benefits. This led Justice Drysdale to quash the ABDF’s decision and eventually grant an injunction to Willock which would prevent the force from downgrading his position. They were also ordered to remove a letter of reprimand from his file. The ABDF was supposed to pay damages and cost by October 26, 2023 but failed to do so. Yesterday’s hearing was to assess what those costs and damages would be.
Willock has worked as a military officer for 18 years, and spent seven of them as a captain.
The ABDF has denied targeting the officer and said that his position as a captain was an oversight that they sought to correct by downgrading his position.
While Justice Drysdale mulls her decision, she has instructed both parties to refrain from making further public commentary on the matter.
In the meantime, two other military officers have taken the ABDF to court, attempting to prevent them from changing their employment statuses.