“Where is the Signed MOU?” MP Trevor Walker Reveals Parliament Was Given an Unsigned Draft of the Deportee Agreement

Barbuda MP Trevor Walker has revealed that the Memorandum of Understanding placed before Parliament on Monday for the debate on third-country deportees was unsigned — despite the Prime Minister having told the nation for months that a signed agreement with the United States existed since December 2025.

The disclosure, made from the floor of the House during MP Walker’s contribution to the debate on the white paper resolution, raises serious questions about whether parliament was given the actual document governing the arrangement, or a draft that may differ from what was executed between the two governments.

Damaged File, Late Delivery, Unsigned Document

MP Walker laid out a timeline of how the MOU reached him that made the government’s handling of the process sound less like statecraft and more like an afterthought.

He told the House that he received his parliamentary package on Saturday afternoon — with no MOU attached. At approximately 7:36 p.m. on Monday evening, the night before the sitting, an email arrived with the MOU apparently attached. When he attempted to open it, the file was damaged and could not be read.

When MP Walker arrived at the House of Assembly on Monday morning, a physical copy of the MOU was sitting on his desk. He opened it. It was not signed.

“Mr. Speaker, what is astounding about this is that the memorandum of understanding that’s attached here is not signed,” MP Walker told the House. “The Prime Minister said to this country — and I want to be correct — that there was a signed, non-binding memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Antigua last year.”

“Where Is the One That Was Signed?”

MP Walker’s challenge was direct and unambiguous. If the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated publicly that a signed MOU exists — if the White Paper itself confirms on page six that the agreement was signed on December 19, 2025 — then why was Parliament given an unsigned version?

“So why come to the Parliament giving us an unsigned draft of a memorandum of understanding?” MP Walker asked. “Where is the one that was signed? I want to see whether or not what is placed before Parliament is the same as the one that was executed by the government of Antigua and Barbuda.”

The question goes to the heart of the integrity of the entire parliamentary exercise. If the document before the House is not the document that was actually signed, there is no way for any parliamentarian to verify that the terms described in the White Paper accurately reflect what was agreed. Parliament would be debating a summary of a document it has never seen, based on a draft that may or may not match the executed version — and taking the government’s word that they are one and the same.

Government MPs had NOT Seen the MOU Either

MP Walker then turned to the government’s own members and posed a question that produced an uncomfortable silence. He asked, one by one, whether they had seen the MOU before Monday morning.

“Member for Saint Peter [Rawdon Turner], have you seen the memorandum of understanding before today? Member for All Saints West [Anthony Smith], have you seen it before today? Member for Saint Mary South [Dwayne George], have you seen it before today?”

MP Walker paused for a moment before breaking the revealing silence by declaring in unbelief “None of them can answer! Not even your cabinet colleagues have seen it.”

The implication was devastating. The government brought a resolution to Parliament asking members to establish the principles governing a deportee arrangement with the United States — an arrangement built on a December 2025 MOU — and neither the opposition, nor the government’s own backbenchers, had seen the foundational document before the morning of the debate. And the copy they were given was unsigned.

“A Matter Serious as This”

MP Walker framed the unsigned MOU not as a clerical error but as a symptom of the government’s entire approach to the issue — one characterised by secrecy, last-minute disclosure, and a reluctance to give parliament the tools it needs to conduct genuine scrutiny.

“A matter as serious as this, Mr. Speaker — it also speaks to the operating procedures as well. Several things that are important to make this a value judgment and an informed decision,” MP Walker said. “That’s not the way it’s done.”

He noted that the Chief Parliamentary Counsel circulated the bills for the sitting, but the MOU was not included among them. It arrived separately, late, in a damaged file, and in unsigned form. “What is the last-minute thing? What is it about?” MP Walker asked.

What the Public Is Left With

MP Walker’s revelation leaves the people of Antigua and Barbuda in an extraordinary position. Their government has told them a signed MOU existed as of December 19th, 2025. Their Parliament was given an unsigned one. No parliamentarian — not the two opposition members, not the government’s own MPs— had seen the document before the day of the debate. And the resolution authorising the government to continue negotiations was passed by the government’s majority regardless.

The signed MOU — the actual document bearing the signatures of the government of Antigua and Barbuda and the government of the United States of America — has still not been published, tabled, or shown to the public. What was placed before Parliament was something else. Whether it is the same document, whether its terms match, and whether the people of Antigua and Barbuda will ever see what was actually signed in their name on December 19, 2025, remains an open and deeply troubling question.

“What is brought to the Parliament today is an injustice to the people of Antigua and Barbuda,” MP Walker said.

The resolution passed. The signed MOU remains unseen.