Former Premier of the Virgin Islands Andrew A. Fahie. Photo: Government of the Virgin Islands

Trial lawyer for former Premier Andrew H. Fahie, Attorney Theresa M. Van Vliet. Photo: venable.com

Attorney Benedict P. Kuehne will represent former Premier of the Virgin Islands Andrew A. Fahie during the appeal of his conviction in relation to cocaine smuggling and money laundering charges. Photo: Kuehne Law

Former Governor of the Virgin Islands, Augustus J. U. Jaspert, had a strained relationship with former Premier Andrew A. Fahie. Photo: Internet Source

After our first article on the conspiracy published on November 24, 2025, we were once again accurate. The UK-based tabloid The Guardian, along with papers in the USA and the USVI, started writing imbalanced, scandalous and insulting articles about the Virgin Islands (VI) and tied it to Mr Fahie’s case.   

Those issues raised in the article about the VI being a money laundering and drug haven jurisdiction have been debunked and proven to be bogus time and time again.

However, they also contacted Attorney Mr Benedict P. Kuehne, who is handling Mr Fahie’s appeal, seeking to speak with Mr Fahie, according to sources familiar with the case.

Wait until after the appeal-  Andrew A Fahie

In a first-time statement to the press, Attorney Kuehne stated, “My response is on behalf of Mr Andrew Fahie. As you know, I am Mr Fahie’s lawyer for his pending federal appeal. Because of the nature of the appellate process and my focus on obtaining appellant relief for Mr Fahie now is not the proper time or in Mr Fahie's best interest to be distracted with a proposed news article while his legal case remains unsettled. Thus, Mr Fahie respectfully declines to engage with you to set the record straight, correct your erroneous observations or comments on the case, because of his ongoing appeal. Once the appeal is concluded, expectedly in Mr Fahie's favour, I will review with Mr Fahie his further options.”

Many legal scholars claimed that Mr Fahie has a very good chance to win on appeal. They questioned some actions taken or not taken during Mr Fahie's case by his case lawyer, Attorney Theresa M. Van Vliet. 

Ms Van Vliet, who went to the UK shortly after the conclusion of Mr Fahie's case, has come under criticism by a few legal personnel for failure to object to the selection of a juror who stated to the court she is an engineer and married to a district attorney who has a close family member who is a Drug Enforcement Agent (DEA).

According to court records, the juror further stated they all recently had dinner together since having knowledge she would be selected as a juror on Fahie’s case. A drug case allegedly organised by the American DEA and other British intelligence, and the local Governor’s Office.

Information obtained alleged that the juror mysteriously went on to state that during the dinner they discussed matters of legal and similar nature to the case of Fahie, “but not Fahie's case”.

More successful grounds for appeal?

To further compound this issue, legal correspondents obtained by our newsroom are suggesting that it seemed as if Fahie's case lawyer failed to once again object to the same lady being selected by the court and prosecution team to be the foreman or person (head juror), to guide the jurors' deliberation in an attempt to reach a verdict.

Legal historians believe that usually persons of this nature are deemed questionable, as they may have challenges in being impartial and usually lean towards a guilty verdict before the trial starts. Hence, why an objection to such persons, given the background of the person and the nature of the case, should have been registered in the court by Fahie's case lawyer, Ms Van Vliet.

This leaves many persons asking the question as to what influence this had on the outcome of the verdict of the trial, especially seeing two jurors immediately after the guilty verdict and jury being dismissed, rush to see the judge, and one also contacted Fahie's attorney as well to make known the guilty verdict does not represent their true position.

Other legal scholars looking at this case and speaking to our newsroom also raised concerns as to why Fahie's case lawyer, Ms Van Vliet, did not request both jurors be recalled immediately to the court to explain, instead agreed with the judge and prosecution team to recall only one juror weeks later and never recall the other juror.

All legal scholars highlighted that long delays to recall anyone to court can oftentimes open the door for negative influences, scare tactics or interference for which all will not be in the defendant's favour, which turned out to be the case with the juror who was recalled.

Did the Judge err?

Although most legal operatives seemed concerned about the way the question was posed to the one juror, when they returned, it seemed ambiguous, and the response from that juror also seemed ambiguous. Our legal team states the judge may have erred in recalling any juror, as this gives the appearance of doubt about the verdict on the part of Judge Kathleen M. Williams. Furthermore, many legal commentators are concerned that the judge may have erred by not summoning the other juror to reappear in court in like manner as was the other juror.

They lamented in these areas, among others, Fahie’s lawyer should have been more insistent; however, they also stated that these issues, among others in Fahie’s case, make for an interesting appeal, especially if the verdicts are deemed not to be unanimous.

Many legal experts believe the verdict and sentencing handed to Mr  Fahie most likely would be overturned. Mr Fahie was sentenced to 11 years in a Miami Federal court for drug trafficking conspiracy in 2024.

See link to related article 

https://www.virginislandsnewsonline.com/en/news/andrew-a-fahies-appeal-has-advanced-who-will-influence-the-outcome

Editor’s note: Our newsroom will be doing a series of articles on Mr Fahie’s appeal and other matters relating to the case.