According to court records, the matter Claim No. SLUHCV2025/0332 was brought by the Prime Minister against two defendants accused of publishing defamatory content via a Facebook page. The Court entered judgment in favour of the claimant after the defendants failed to file an acknowledgement of service or respond to the proceedings.

The ruling, dated January 30, 2026, confirms that judgment was granted to the Prime Minister, with damages to be assessed at a later date by the Court. The matter has been adjourned to chambers for that assessment, signaling that financial compensation and other remedies will be determined in subsequent proceedings.

The case originated from a Statement of Claim filed in August 2025, which outlined allegations that the defendants operated a Facebook page titled “Good Morning Saint Lucia – Vibes at Sunrise” and used it to publish and republish defamatory statements about the Prime Minister and his daughter Philicia Pierre.

The posts, first published around August 23, 2024, contained serious allegations of corruption, misconduct in public office, and involvement in unlawful activities tied to the Citizenship by Investment Programme. Notably, the publications also featured an image of the Prime Minister’s daughter, attempting to draw her into the narrative.

Court documents highlight the expansive reach and amplification of the content across multiple platforms. The original post appeared on a page with approximately 27,000 followers and was subsequently reposted by another politically affiliated page with thousands more members.

The claim further states that the publication was easily accessible worldwide and frequently appeared among top search results when the Prime Minister’s name and his daughter’s name were searched online, intensifying its impact and visibility.

The Court filings emphasise that the defendants failed to verify the allegations, relied on questionable sources, and ignored requests to retract the statements. Instead, the material was presented in sensational terms to attract attention and readership.

A particularly troubling aspect of the case is the inclusion of the Prime Minister’s daughter in the defamatory publications. According to the Statement of Claim, this resulted in harassment, taunting, and emotional distress not only for the Prime Minister but also for his family.

The documents note that the family endured public ridicule and anxiety as a direct consequence of the posts, underscoring how political attacks on social media can extend beyond public figures to affect private individuals.

The claim asserts that the false allegations severely harmed the Prime Minister’s personal and professional reputation, both locally and internationally. The widespread circulation of the content led to inquiries from across Saint Lucia, the Caribbean, and even the United States and United Kingdom.

The Court filings further maintain that the publications were designed to portray the Prime Minister as corrupt and involved in criminal conduct, claims described as entirely false.

This judgment underscores the legal risks associated with the misuse of social media platforms for defamatory purposes. It also reinforces the principle that while public figures may be subject to scrutiny, there are clear legal boundaries, particularly when false statements are made and when private family members are drawn into political attacks.

As the Court moves to assess damages, the case is expected to serve as a notable precedent in Saint Lucia’s evolving legal landscape surrounding digital communication, accountability, and the protection of reputation in the age of social media.