Tweet

In a blistering monologue on the radio programme Big Issues, former Deputy Prime Minister and Ambassador Sam Condor delivered an uncompromising verdict on the recently passed Special Sovereign Zone (SSZ) Bill now before the Federal Parliament of the Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis. The message was unmistakable: this bill, he warned, threatens to reverse decades of hard-won progress and take the country back 50 years.

Condor’s critique ranged from land-ownership injustices to the existential threat of “enclaves” and “negated communities” created by this development scheme. He accused Prime Minister Drew and Premier Brantley of abdicating the government’s fundamental responsibility to its citizens—of handing over power, control and land to private interests without adequate safeguards for ordinary people.

---

Breaking Down the Argument

Condor began with the historical context, reminding listeners of the sweeping nationalisation of sugar-lands in 1975 under the stewardship of former Premier Robert Bradshaw, which transferred absolute ownership of productive land to the people of St. Kitts. “On the 31st of January, 1975 … we are gathered here this morning collectively to make history by assuming the greatest responsibility… to take over by law absolute ownership and control of all of the really productive land in this isle of our birth, for the mutual benefit and for the benefit of our posterity forever,” Condor quoted.
By doing so, the government had sought to redress the scandalous distribution in which “about 5% of the population owning about 95% of the land.” According to Condor, those gains are now under threat.

Condor’s core contention:

• The SSZ Bill departs from all prior models of development (such as the Southeast Peninsula/Christophe Harbour arrangement) because it stakes out a fundamentally different proposition—one that he argues undermines sovereignty, land-ownership rights, and social justice.
• He warned that ordinary people of St. Kitts are being pushed out: “yachts and super yachts” was his colourful description of the state of affairs—only the ultra-wealthy benefit.
• He challenged: What makes this investment different from the numerous acceptable developments of the past (e.g., the Marriott Resort St. Kitts or the golf course at Frigate Bay)? The answer, Condor argued, is simple: the government will no longer be in control.
• He minced no words: “We must not cede that to anybody. There must not be any enclaves, there must be no negated communities like that … And that is what you see happening in this development.”

---

A Bill Too Far, Says Condor

For Condor, the SSZ Bill is not just ill-conceived—it is a betrayal. He insisted that it threatens to undo half a century of struggle: from independence to nationalisation to land reform. “We fought for those gains,” he said, “and this act will not assist in us going forward, moving forward.” Instead, he warned that the measure would return the country to a state of dependency, inequality and landlessness.

He advanced two key criticisms:

1. Sovereignty and governance – He asked what remains in the hands of the government: “Are we in charge of certain things or is this truly a country‐within‐a‐country type of thing?” He sees the structure as a partial abdication of state responsibility, handing over key decisions to developers and elevating private interests over the public good.
2. Social justice and land rights – Landless people in St. Kitts, he recalled, were the norm before nationalisation. Any development that fails to restore or protect access to land for ordinary citizens is, for him, morally unacceptable. The SSZ Bill, he contends, fails on this front.

He acknowledged that public discussion and parliamentary debate are underway, but declared these inadequate. “Even so,” he said, “I don’t think that is no guarantee that … if we leave it this way, that it will not happen how they are proposing it.” In other words, the law might pass with the same cast of decision-makers and without meaningful safeguard for citizens.

---

What’s at Stake

For Condor:

• If the Bill remains without repeal in its current form, it will cement enclaves—zones where ordinary citizens have no real stake or voice.
• It will create negated communities—places bypassed by the gains of development.
• It will reverse decades of progress in land reform, equality and inclusive growth.
• It represents a transfer of power from the state (which has the duty to govern, to correct inequalities, to protect citizens) to private developers and investors.

He insisted: “Government has a far greater and higher responsibility than any other stakeholders.” That responsibility includes promoting an efficient economy and a socially responsible society. By handing over control—or failing to clearly retain control—the government risks abandoning that duty.

---

The Political Fallout

Condor’s comments amount to a direct challenge to Prime Minister Drew and Premier Brantley. His words suggest that they are either unaware of, or indifferent to, the full implications of the SSZ Bill. His invocation of past struggles, land nationalisation, and the need for public participation frames this moment as a pivotal one—one where the government must choose between elite development and democratic accountability.

By placing the SSZ Bill in the broader historical sweep of the country’s evolution—from landlessness, to independence, to state control of productive land—Condor elevates the discussion from mere legislative detail to existential question: what kind of country will St. Kitts and Nevis be?

---

Conclusion: A Call to Action

Ambassador Sam Condor’s message is unequivocal: the SSZ Bill, as it stands, is a bad deal for the people of St. Kitts and Nevis. It jeopardises sovereignty, undermines social justice, risks creating enclaves of privilege, and reverses hard-won gains in land reform. He is calling on citizens, civil society, and the Parliament to wake up—to engage—and to ensure that any development is inclusive, accountable and rooted in the principle that government must retain control for the people.

In his words: “Government must not cede its responsibility to any investor, any developer.” If this Bill remains without repeal or meaningful amendment, he warns, “we are moving back 50 years.”

This is not just politics. For Condor, it is a red line.