The Development Control Authority (DCA), this afternoon, demolished a tent belonging to Opposition Leader and All Saints East & St Luke MP Jamale Pringle at Morris Bay, destroying the structure while the parliamentarian was in the House participating in the 2026 Budget debate.
The tent, according to Pringle, cost around US$65K. In parliament earlier this week, PM Browne threatened to have the tent taken down. Pringle responded by saying, “try that, and you will see.”
But this appears to have been political cross-talk until the DCA officers arrived at the site with police support and destroyed the tent.
The presence of law enforcement drew immediate attention from nearby residents and vendors.
“They didn’t just dismantle the tent; they destroyed it. It cannot be used again”, Pringle tells Antigua.news.
As news of the demolition circulated, several opposition MPs left Parliament and travelled to the scene.
They engaged with constituents who voiced frustration, concern, and fear about what the move could signal for other small operators.
Some residents said they now worry that their own makeshift stalls and structures could be targeted next.
The incident has intensified the ongoing debate over access, regulation, and the treatment of small business owners along the nation’s coastlines.
Documents obtained by Antigua.news clearly show a notice from the DCA to remove the tent, but Pringle said he was still in negotiations with the DCA regarding that notice.
DCA enforcement notice concerning Opposition Leader Jamale Pringle’s tent
Pringle says he intends to explore his legal rights.
Political madness! There’s a time where we have to draw the line between fair and unfair. It’s high about time we draw the line between stupidity and wickedness! I will not stand with the government of Antigua and Barbuda on ridiculousness. I hope Mr. Pringle proceeds with legal action on this one. It’s time somebody give Gaston a taste of his own medicine!!!
Gaston Trump flexing .
Pringle was so loud in parliament, they had to find a way to silence him? Anyone who agrees with the Labour Party and DCA should truly be condemned! This is crazy
Yet Gaston Brown and the DCA, allow white foreign investors to fence off the peoples beach and do nothing!!
I would say shame on them, but the ABLP have no shame!!
What happened at Morris Bay was not leadership, and the right-thinking people of this beautiful nation see it as an abuse of authority disguised as enforcement.
We heard what happened in the PARLIAMENT. We listened. We saw. Prime Minister Gaston Browne’s decision to send the DCA, backed by police, to bulldoze Jamale Pringle’s tent while the Opposition Leader was inside Parliament is nothing short of political intimidation. It was a show of force meant to embarrass, silence, and humiliate, not to uphold any so-called regulation.
This is not governance. This is vindictiveness.
The Prime Minister has turned state agencies into weapons, and this very day, he fired them at the parliamentary Opposition while they sat down in the house of assembly. A $65,000 structure was destroyed, not dismantled, not removed destroyed. Come on Gaston Browne, where is the love that you claim to have for people. You preach love on your radio station every Saturday yet you display nothing but hate here. That is not due process. That is spite.
And the worst part? Ordinary citizens are now terrified that their own small stalls and makeshift structures could be next. When political power is used this way, it sends one message to the public: If you dare oppose me, I will come for you too.
Antigua and Barbuda is not a dictatorship. No Prime Minister, Labour, UPP, or otherwise, has the right to use government machinery to retaliate against political rivals.
This is a dangerous precedent.
This is a misuse of state resources.
This is the behaviour of someone who has forgotten that leadership requires restraint, fairness, and respect for democratic space.
Whether you like Pringle or not, what happened should frighten every citizen who believes in democracy. Today it’s the Opposition Leader’s tent. Tomorrow it could be a vendor’s stall, a small business, or any citizen who dares speak out.
Antigua and Barbuda deserves better than a government that treats power like a personal weapon.
Gaston Browne and his cronies are all demons —wicked to the native of this country. The beach business employed people, so what will these employees do tomorrow for a job. That beach front should be for the people to install small beach businesses along the beach—something they would call their own. Majority of our beach front have sold off to the white slave masters great-grandchildren. Why not leave that area for the citizens to apply their business trade. The tourists are here to mingle with the native, eat their food and dine in these types of small local businesses, which the fun of traveling to different countries.
I thought them guys were kidding in Palriament. Never know they serious
A $65 thousand US tent? For ONE fgj_&$-ing tent? That coat more than the new affordable homes the government gonna start selling. Make that make sense please
The prime minister is so childish just because pringle talk about the vehicle gates and the millons
It’s Not About Politics — It’s About Regulation
Legal Framework Requires Planning Permission for New Structures
Under the relevant laws (as incorporated into the revised Physical Planning Act), any new building or structure must receive planning permission from the DCA before construction begins.
FAOLEX
+2
Antigua and Barbuda Laws
+2
The Act classifies a “building or other structure” on land — including the coastal/shoreline zones — as subject to regulation.
FAOLEX
+2
Antigua and Barbuda Laws
+2
That means any erection on a public beach — like the structure allegedly built by Jamale Pringle — must go through formal channels, seek approval, and be assessed under building codes.
Antigua and Barbuda Laws
+2
FAOLEX
+2
Public Beaches Are Protected — Coastal Constructions Are Not Automatically Allowed
The amended definitions under the Physical Planning Act explicitly define what constitutes a “beach,” clarifying the boundaries and protections accorded to coastal zones.
Antigua and Barbuda Laws
+1
Historically, law restrictions also prohibited the removal of sand, gravel or other beach materials for building or construction purposes without a written permit from the appropriate authority.
Antigua and Barbuda Laws
These safeguards reflect not only environmental and safety concerns, but also public access rights: public beaches must remain accessible to all citizens — no private development should infringe on that right or institutionalize exclusive coastal structures.
embassy.ag
+2
wicnews.com
+2
Recent Government & DCA Policy Emphasizes Compliance, Transparency and Enforcement
In recent months, the government — via Cabinet decisions — has reiterated that all unauthorized vending facilities and unapproved structures on public beaches must be removed.
antigua.news
+2
embassy.ag
+2
As part of a shift to more rigorous oversight, authorities have announced plans to centralize construction approvals, beef up capacity at the DCA, and clamp down on “shacks on beaches” and other informal/illegal coastal constructions.
Antigua News Room
+1
Furthermore, enforcement notices (demolition/removal notices) are now required to be publicly posted, increasing transparency and ensuring that building infractions are properly documented before action is taken.
Antigua News Room
+2
Antigua Observer Newspaper
+2
Implication: If the Structure Was Erected Without Proper Permit — It Violated the Law, and Its Removal Was Justified
Given the above: if Hon. Pringle’s beach-side structure was erected without a valid permit or approval from the DCA under the rules for coastal development, then it stood in clear violation of the Physical Planning Act and associated building codes.
That alone would justify enforcement action, including demolition or removal, under provisions of the Act (as the DCA has done in other similar cases).
Antigua News Room
+2
Antigua and Barbuda Laws
+2
This isn’t about political vendetta — it’s about upholding the law and ensuring that public spaces, especially beaches, remain accessible, safe, properly regulated, and environmentally protected.
✅ Why This Matters: Beyond One Structure
Precedent & Fairness: Allowing even one “unapproved structure” on a public beach sets a dangerous precedent: others may follow, leading to piecemeal privatization or degradation of public coastal areas.
Environmental & Public-Access Protection: Beaches are fragile ecosystems and key public resources. Regulations exist precisely to prevent harmful development, maintain access for all citizens, and protect natural assets.
Legal Clarity & Transparency: With recent amendments to the Physical Planning Act and renewed emphasis on enforcement, the rule of law must be applied consistently — no exceptions for political leaders or influential individuals.
Trust in Institutions: If the body tasked with oversight (the DCA) is seen as inconsistent — politically biased or willing to overlook infractions for some but not others — public trust erodes. Consistent, transparent enforcement restores legitimacy.
📣 Conclusion: Questions That Demand Answers
Before anything, the DCA and government owe the public clarity on the following:
Was a formal permit ever applied for or granted for the structure erected by Jamale Pringle on the beach?
If no permit was granted — on what legal grounds was the structure allowed to remain for any period of time?
Did the structure violate environmental, coastal-setback, or public-access regulations under the Physical Planning Act or related legislation?
Has the DCA acted consistently in similar cases — or does this represent selective enforcement depending on political affiliation or pressure?
Until these questions are answered transparently, it’s difficult to view the demolition as anything less than an enforcement of regulation — not a political attack.
The law applies to everyone. Pringle and his gang need to tell people THE TRUTH instead of continuing to exploit their penchant for noise, illegality and pure dunceness. The entitled squatters were warned several weeks ago that their failure to comply with THE LAW would result in their forceable and forceful removal. They ignored the law and are now reaping the consequences. This is a normal quid pro quo. What makes these Barbarians “special”?? Actions have consequences and today, these law-breakers are facing the consequence of their actions.
Are we getting like China, if we speak out on government we are doomed.
So you have big mouth and drama in parliament now you cryng
@Ole You speak of the Minister having “big mouth” in Parliament….Debating as he should and you claim he has a large mouth for that. Oh what a dumb cunt though are.
I see allot of people bashing the government and DCA, let’s talk about the two notices that he received and never acted on them. on that note he said in parliament “send DCA to remove it” and DCA did just that. That could’ve been avoided it he followed the notice orders.
This is just abuse of power and everyone can see it! I’m sure Gaston and Rawdon is at home laughing about this. Not because he spoke about your wife you make this approach!! This is abuse of power and just showing that you run…… Gaston Browne-Trump
WHAT. This is way more dramatic than we believe
$65,000 down the drain and tempers still rising. Politics should never get this personal
So who will pay the man for his tent.