Tweet

Unraveling the timelines, transparency gaps, and unanswered questions surrounding Nevis’ controversial Special Sustainability Zone.

By SKN Times Commentary Desk

“Something is not adding up.” With those words, Dr. Kelvin Daly reignited the national debate over the controversial Special Sustainability Zone (SSZ) initiative — raising serious questions about timelines, transparency, and governance.

At stake is not only the future of southeast Nevis, but also public trust in how information about the SSZ has been communicated.

---

THE TIMELINES IN QUESTION

In the July 2025 Gingerland Townhall, Premier Mark Brantley dismissed concerns about a proposed Sovereign Enclave, calling them “rumours” and insisting that while there had been interest from developers, no hard proposal had been submitted to Cabinet.

Yet, weeks later, the Premier stated that he now had sight of a proposal. That apparent shift in position raised eyebrows.

Dr. Daly highlights timelines that make this change especially curious:

• March 2024: The platform Destiny.com appeared on Facebook, inviting followers to join what it described as “the world’s first SSZ.” This was 17 months before the Gingerland meeting and before the SSZ Bill was even passed in Basseterre.
• July 30, 2024: South Nevis Ltd was incorporated in Charlestown, reportedly connected to one of the principals promoting the enclave. This occurred a full year before the Gingerland Townhall.

The natural question follows: if public signals about an SSZ were emerging as early as March 2024, how could the matter still be characterized as “rumour” by July 2025?

---

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

The timelines leave citizens with reasonable questions:

• How did Destiny.com know to market an SSZ long before the bill was debated?
• Why was South Nevis Ltd incorporated a year before the Gingerland Townhall if no proposal had yet reached the Cabinet?
• Were there early discussions or assurances given to investors before the public was informed?

These are not accusations — they are legitimate questions born out of chronology, documentation, and logic.

---

THE CORE ISSUE: TRANSPARENCY

Whether one supports or opposes the SSZ, the real issue is trust. The public expects clarity from its leaders on matters involving land use, development, and the future of Nevis. When timelines appear inconsistent, suspicion naturally follows.

Governance is strongest when leaders engage openly and proactively. Silence, delay, or shifting narratives only fuel doubt.

---

MOVING FORWARD

The SSZ may yet be debated and refined on its merits, but the conversation cannot be divorced from the way it has been introduced to the public. Transparency and disclosure are not optional — they are essential to good governance.

As Dr. Daly rightly noted, “Something is not adding up.” The people of Nevis deserve for those sums to be balanced, openly and honestly, so they can judge for themselves.