Tweet

Veteran jurist warns of sovereignty erosion, legal ambiguity, and the silent handover of control to private developers

In a powerful and unflinching critique, Senior Counsel Charles Wilkin KC has raised the most serious constitutional and democratic red flags yet regarding the recently passed Special Sustainability Zone (SSZ) or “Private City” legislation — warning that the law opens the door to a “state within a state” and exposes the Federation to risks that could “undermine national sovereignty, weaken democratic governance, and marginalize local citizens.”

---

A SECOND GOVERNMENT INSIDE ST. KITTS AND NEVIS

Wilkin’s foremost concern — and perhaps the most chilling — is the risk of creating a “state within a state.”
He notes that the SSZ Act effectively empowers private developers to wield quasi-governmental authority within designated areas — including powers over infrastructure, environmental regulation, and even the administration of services typically reserved for the state.

Such sweeping powers, he argues, blur the line between private enterprise and sovereign governance, potentially allowing unelected foreign developers to operate as de facto rulers within zones of national territory.

“This Act gives the appearance of inviting a second government to exist alongside our elected one,” Wilkin cautioned. “It raises the constitutional question of whether Parliament has, by legislation, outsourced national sovereignty.”

Legal observers say this structure could set a dangerous precedent — one where local laws, enforcement, and rights could differ sharply within the SSZ, eroding the principle of equality before the law and diluting parliamentary authority.

---

“DEAFENING SILENCES” — KEY AREAS LEFT OPEN OR UNREGULATED

Wilkin also zeroed in on what he described as “legislative silence” — glaring gaps that leave crucial areas of governance unaddressed or under private control.
Among the unanswered questions he highlights:

• Policing and Security: Who enforces the law within these private enclaves — local police, or developer-appointed forces?
• Immigration and Customs: Can developers control who enters and exits?
• Land Rights and Acquisition: Could locals be pressured or coerced to sell?
• Financial Oversight: How will Social Security, the ECCB, and anti–money laundering frameworks operate within a privately administered zone?
• Environmental and Maritime Jurisdiction: Who governs the coastal waters, waste management, and ecological protection?
• Labor and CARICOM/OECS Treaties: Will local workers and regional citizens have equal rights or be sidelined by imported labor?
• Digital Finance and Cryptocurrency: What safeguards exist to prevent misuse under the banner of “innovation”?

Each of these silences, Wilkin argues, represents an abdication of the state’s duty to protect its people and regulate its territory.

---

A NEW ERA OF FOREIGN CONTROL?

What alarms Wilkin most is the potential loss of economic and territorial autonomy.
With private developers allegedly being granted extensive discretion to set rules, build infrastructure, and manage commerce within SSZs, the legislation risks ceding public control of national assets — particularly land and coastal zones, which are finite and culturally sacred in small island nations.

“Land has always been the soul of our sovereignty,” a legal commentator noted. “To hand that over to corporations under the pretext of sustainability is to sell the very soil beneath our feet.”

---

DEMOCRATIC DECAY IN THE MAKING?

Beyond the technical legalities, Wilkin’s critique touches on a deeper philosophical question: Who governs St. Kitts and Nevis — its people, or its developers?
By granting such sweeping privileges to private entities under the SSZ framework, the government risks reducing citizens to spectators in their own democracy, excluded from decision-making over land, law, and livelihood.

“The SSZ law,” Wilkin implies, “may be dressed in the language of sustainability — but its architecture reeks of surrender.”

---

THE ROAD AHEAD

With growing public unease, Wilkin’s warnings add intellectual and moral weight to what many fear could become the largest transfer of national control in post-independence history.
His intervention is a call not merely for debate, but for urgent reconsideration and possible amendment of the Act to restore transparency, accountability, and constitutional integrity.

As one civic group put it:

“If unchecked, the SSZ could become the Trojan Horse through which sovereignty is quietly privatized — and democracy becomes pay-to-play.”