Understanding the SSZ Act: Law, Sovereignty, and the Future of Investment

By Eboni Brandon

Public discourse around St. Kitts and Nevis’ Special Sustainability Zones Authorisation Act (2025) has been dominated by alarm and assumption. Yet laws deserve to be read — and understood — before they are feared. For some, the SSZ Act has become a symbol of distrust — framed as a pathway for foreign developers to build gated mini-nations, wield power, and erode sovereignty.

I approached my own scrutiny of the Act from a different standpoint. My goal was not to defend or condemn it, but to understand what it actually says — to study the text, the structure, and the safeguards it establishes. To do this, I also examined Antigua and Barbuda’s Free Trade and Processing Zone Act, passed in 1994 and amended in 2019. While not identical in purpose, it offers a useful regional reference for how similar frameworks have evolved. When compared carefully, it becomes clear that the SSZ Act is neither radical nor reckless — rather, it is a more mature, rights-conscious evolution of earlier free-zone legislation.

What the SSZ Act Actually Does

At its core, the SSZ Act aims to facilitate sustainable economic development within defined areas of the Federation by attracting responsible investment aligned with environmental and social goals. It allows Cabinet to designate specific locations as Special Sustainability Zones for approved projects that meet strict sustainability and governance criteria.

A key safeguard appears in Section 7. It provides that if a Development Agreement includes any of the matters listed under Section 6(2)(f)–(l) — such as environmental management, Zone Governance, or import/export control — it “shall be ratified by, and contained in, a law passed by the National Assembly”, and, if the Zone is located in Nevis, also by the Nevis Island Assembly. Once executed and, where required, ratified, the Prime Minister or Premier must formally declare the Zone by Order in the Gazette.

Importantly, Section 7(4) empowers the government to amend or revoke that declaration if a developer fails to meet agreed “timelines, milestones, or commitments,” or if the agreement is terminated or materially changed. This is a powerful control mechanism — one that ensures the state retains ultimate authority.

The Act also includes an explicit sovereignty safeguard. Section 6(1)(i) mandates that every agreement acknowledge that certain functions remain within the exclusive legislative, governance, and administrative control of the Government, whether inside or outside a Zone. These include foreign affairs, defence, citizenship and residence, elections and voter registration, and the jurisdiction of the courts.

Equally significant is the definition of “Zone Governance” in the interpretation section. It requires that all Zone governance structures be “consistent with the Constitution” and that any new Zone laws or amendments are valid only when ratified by Acts of the National Assembly and, where applicable, the Nevis Island Assembly. Together, these provisions make the concept of a “state within a state” legally impossible.

The Opposition’s Case

Critics of the SSZ Act have argued that it opens the door to allowing unscrupulous developers to operate as unelected authorities, wield government-like powers, and potentially create social and economic segregation. Others suggest that it is a pathway to corruption or foreign interference.

These arguments tend to rely on broad generalisations rather than specific readings of the statute. For instance, no clause grants developers legislative or judicial powers. The law does not authorise them to issue passports, create new systems of justice, or restrict lawful movement. Every activity within a Zone remains subject to the Constitution and laws of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis. The Cabinet, through the Prime Minister or Premier, retains the right to terminate or revoke the developer’s status at any time.

It is therefore inaccurate to describe the SSZ Act as a surrender of sovereignty. Instead, it formalises a partnership model in which government oversight is constant, layered, and legally enforceable.

Considering the Legal Commentary of Charles Wilkin KC

The loudest objections have come from political quarters, but even thoughtful legal minds such as Charles Wilkin KC have voiced concern. His commentary warrants careful examination, particularly as his recent critique of the Act has become a central reference point for its opponents.

Wilkin posited in his commentary:

“If the Government wants to satisfy the public of their motives, they must disclose in full detail what development(s) they are promoting under the Act, and justify why a developer needs to take over Government powers. There is no room for secrecy here.”

He went on to caution that without transparency, “the Act will be tied up in litigation all the way up to the Privy Council”, and called for full disclosure of Zone Developers and their associates. He also urged that campaign-finance laws be enacted to prevent developers from “buying elections and politicians,” suggesting that the Act “provides a serious potential risk to our elections.”

Wilkin’s concerns about transparency and accountability are valid in principle. They reflect a lawyer’s innate instinct to anticipate how good intentions can be misused in practice. It is important, however, to separate what lies within the SSZ Act from what lies outside it.

The Act already embeds transparency through its mandatory parliamentary ratification process. No qualifying development can proceed without public scrutiny in the National Assembly. It also provides for public declarations in the Gazette, ensuring official notice of every approved Zone.

The campaign-finance concern, however, is a different matter. It relates to gaps in electoral law, not investment legislation. While his call for campaign-finance reform is justified — and is an exercise which is indeed overdue — it is not a structural flaw of the SSZ framework.

In practical terms, since the inception of St. Kitts and Nevis’ Citizenship by Investment Programme in 1984, roughly 50,000 non-resident individuals have been granted economic citizenship, almost mirroring the 2022 resident population of 51,000. If this vast global community, many of whom are incredibly high-net-worth individuals, has not “rushed” the Federation to distort its democracy, then a limited number of carefully vetted SSZ investors are unlikely to do so. The real solution lies in passing separate campaign-finance legislation, not in rejecting the SSZ Act.

Learning from Antigua and Barbuda

Antigua and Barbuda’s Free Trade and Processing Zone Act (1994, amended in 2019) provides useful historical context. It established zones to promote export-oriented industries through tax incentives and reduced bureaucracy. It achieved some success, but over time exposed weaknesses — particularly in environmental oversight and accountability.

The YIDA project, launched in 2014 under this Act, was envisioned as a multi-billion-dollar development. Yet it became mired in controversy, with criticisms about transparency, environmental degradation, and limited benefits to nationals of Antigua and Barbuda. Eventually, the project stalled.

The SSZ Act in St. Kitts and Nevis clearly learns from these lessons. Unlike Antigua and Barbuda’s older framework, it integrates mandatory sustainability standards, parliamentary ratification, and revocation powers. These features strengthen accountability and protect against precisely the kind of overreach that undermined earlier projects elsewhere in the region.

Debunking the “State Within a State” Claim

One of the more dramatic claims surrounding the SSZ is that it allows investors to create sovereign enclaves or “private nations.” This idea collapses upon reading the text.

The Constitution remains supreme; every Zone must operate within it. Developers cannot create or enforce laws independently, nor can they exempt themselves from national jurisdiction. Land within the Zone remains subject to national property and planning laws.

Even where access restrictions exist — such as security zones for industrial or environmental reasons — these are no different from access restrictions at any major development site. They do not confer sovereignty or exclusive citizenship.

The Act’s definition of Zone Governance and Section 6(1)(i) together enshrine that constitutional supremacy. The state’s core functions — from defence to justice — remain beyond private reach.

Strengthening Public Confidence

That said, citizens are right to expect clarity about implementation. Transparency builds trust, and sustained dialogue ensures both understanding and accountability. In this regard, the government’s decision to continue public engagement through a national consultation scheduled for 15th October 2025 is commendable. It shows recognition that legislative passage does not end the duty to communicate.

This continued conversation can further demystify how Zones are approved, how compliance will be monitored, and how citizens benefit. It also provides a forum for the business community, civil society, and ordinary residents to express their views directly.

The Bigger Picture

Opposition to new legislation is a sign of a functioning democracy, but opposition must be grounded in accuracy. The SSZ Act is not flawless — no law is — but it is not the existential threat it has been portrayed to be. It is, instead, a carefully designed framework that seeks to combine economic innovation with environmental integrity and national oversight.

The very controls critics demand — parliamentary scrutiny, constitutional consistency, and revocation powers — already exist within the Act. The challenge ahead is not to repeal it, but to ensure its responsible application.

In Closing

The Special Sustainability Zones Authorisation Act, 2025 is neither an abdication of sovereignty nor a blank cheque to foreign investors. It is a modern legislative instrument built on precedent, refined by lessons learned, and structured to protect the people of St. Kitts and Nevis while inviting responsible investment.

Where there is room for improvement — such as clearer communication, timely disclosure, and commencing the long overdue conversation concerning campaign-finance reform — these can and should be addressed without discarding an otherwise sound framework.

If we are to strengthen governance, we must start by reading the laws we debate, not the fears that others project. In the end, the SSZ Act does not trade sovereignty for investment; it redefines development through accountability. Sustainability, in every sense, is the point.

---

Stay informed with the latest news and updates from SKN Source! Click here to join our WhatsApp channel and get updates straight to your mobile. Don’t forget to follow us on Facebook for more stories and insights!