The United Progressive Party (UPP) has instructed its legal team to challenge the actions of the Development Control Agency (DCA) after it demolished a political billboard last week.

The billboard, positioned on the property of UPP Senator Jonathan Joseph, featured an image of Brian Stuart-Young, the CEO of Global Bank of Commerce, whose company has recently faced scrutiny regarding Barbuda funds and a legal challenge from Jack Stroll.

Last Monday, Frederick Southwell, the Town and County Planner, issued a letter to the UPP’s General Secretary, Senator Shawn Nicholas, stating that “all political material should be removed within 14 days following the election.”

In the letter, Southwell claimed that the UPP had violated its agreement by leaving up the political billboard, which the DCA had only recently become aware of.

On Saturday, Senator Joseph, whose billboard was removed on Thursday, expressed frustration with what he viewed as a double standard at the DCA when it comes to addressing political billboards.

He pointed out that his opponent’s billboard had remained up since 2018, with the exception of a new poster added during the most recent election. Senator Joseph claimed that the removal of his billboard was tantamount to ‘silencing’ him and that he would be taking legal action.

Video evidence of the billboard being taken down also showed the political advertising of Health Minister Sir Molwyn Joseph, erected during the last general election, still standing.

Kelvin Simon, MP for St Mary’s South, had also expressed anger over the removal of his billboard cover at his branch office.

The UPP’s legal advisor, Leon Symister, confirmed that the party plans to seek judicial review of the DCA’s decision to destroy their billboard, which carried an image of Senator Jonathan Joseph and a message from the party. Symister added that the UPP would also seek damages for the destruction of their property.

He claimed that the DCA’s decision was politically motivated and discriminatory, as they were not aware of any condition in the Physical Planning Act that would be applicable only to the UPP and not all parties or people in similar situations.

Symister also argued that the UPP was given no time to appeal the decision, and that the DCA’s actions were arbitrary and capricious.