Tweet

BAR DRAWS A RED LINE:

Basseterre, St. Kitts — December 2025

In one of the most consequential legal interventions in modern St. Kitts and Nevis history, the St. Kitts and Nevis Bar Association has issued a searing, unequivocal resolution condemning the Special Sustainability Zones Authorisation Act, 2025 (SSZA) as fundamentally dangerous to the Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law.

Far from a routine policy critique, the Bar’s resolution—dated 12 December 2025 and signed by its full Law Council—amounts to a constitutional alarm bell, warning that the SSZA, as structured, represents an unprecedented transfer of legislative, executive, and judicial authority from the State to private developers.

A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY, NOT A POLITICAL OPINION

Grounding its position squarely in law, the Bar invoked:

• The Preamble to the Constitution, which mandates economic development within respect for law and order;
• Section 5 of the Legal Profession Act, which obliges the Bar to defend the administration of justice, the rule of law, and sound law reform.

This framing is critical. The Bar made clear that its intervention is not ideological or partisan—it is a constitutional obligation triggered by what it views as structural defects so severe they cannot be cured by cosmetic amendments.

DELEGATING THE STATE ITSELF

At the heart of the Bar’s concern is what it describes as the “apparent intent” of the SSZA to:

• Delegate legislative powers reserved exclusively for Parliament and the Nevis Island Assembly;
• Delegate executive authority vested in Cabinet and the Nevis Island Administration;
• Undermine the constitutional balance between the Federal Government and Nevis.

The resolution warns that the Act authorises governance powers for developers that “far exceed those reasonably required for any economic development.” In effect, the Bar is cautioning that the SSZA risks creating parallel governments within the Federation.

AUTONOMOUS ZONES: A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

Perhaps most alarming is the Bar’s rejection of provisions that could enable the creation of autonomous zones—territories operating under rules negotiated with developers rather than laws passed by elected representatives.

The Bar explicitly objects to:

• The suspension or removal of existing statutory protections;
• The displacement of critical regulatory regimes, including AML/CFT and counter-proliferation safeguards;
• The erosion of citizens’ rights beyond the bare minimum protected by the Constitution, creating what the Bar warns could amount to second-class citizenship.

SELF-PENALISING THE STATE

In a striking passage, the Bar condemns the SSZA’s authorisation of penalties payable by the Government to developers, noting that:

“Government has never previously imposed such penalties on itself.”

This provision, the Bar argues, overturns settled legal principles requiring proof of actual loss and exposes the State to open-ended financial liability, potentially mortgaging the country’s future to private interests.

COURTS, CITIZENSHIP, AND DEMOCRACY AT RISK

The resolution raises red flags over:

• The possible creation of developer-controlled court systems, an extraordinary threat to judicial independence;
• The vast expansion of population and grant of citizenship, without adequate safeguards to protect the electoral system;
• The absence of protections against political exploitation by developers and their associates.

In response, the Bar calls for strong democratic safeguards, including:

• Removing voting rights from CBI residents;
• Enacting robust campaign finance legislation;
• Preserving the exclusive jurisdiction of the nation’s courts.

“NOT FIXABLE BY TINKERING”

In its most damning conclusion, the Bar states plainly that the SSZA’s deficiencies are:

“Significant and cannot be adequately remedied by minor amendments or administrative guidance.”

Instead, it demands fundamental restructuring, insisting that:

• All national laws must apply to developers, with only narrow, development-facilitating exemptions;
• All penalty clauses be removed;
• Any trespass on Nevis’ constitutional powers be eliminated;
• Mandatory environmental and social impact assessments and public consultations be required before any development agreement is enacted.

A STAND FOR THE REPUBLIC

The Bar has also placed itself on record as willing to participate in reform discussions—“with all rights reserved”—a phrase that signals both openness and legal readiness.

Signed by President Kurlyn D. V. Merchant, Secretary Talibah Byron-Chiverton, and the full Law Council, the resolution stands as one of the strongest institutional rebukes of executive-led legislation in the Federation’s post-Independence era.

The message is unmistakable:
Economic development cannot come at the cost of constitutional order.
Investment cannot replace sovereignty.
And no Act—no matter how branded—can place the State itself up for negotiation.

This is not merely a legal opinion.
It is a line drawn in constitutional ink.