Nationwide Exploitation Cloaked in Political Discourse

Prime Minister Dr. Terrance Drew’s fervent defense of the Christophe Harbour Marina sale, punctuated by accusations against the former Harris administration, has been demonstrably undermined by documented evidence. Drew’s central claim, that the St. Kitts and Nevis government held a 30% ownership stake in Christophe Harbour and lost out on potential earnings of US$100 million due to Harris’s negotiations, is directly contradicted by the loan agreement itself and independent valuations. This narrative, carefully constructed to portray the current administration as saviors of a disastrous situation, crumbles under the weight of factual inconsistencies and a selective presentation of historical events. The controversy underscores the need for genuine transparency and accountability in government dealings, demanding a full disclosure of the marina sale agreement and a candid acknowledgment of the actual financial implications for the nation.

The crux of Drew’s argument hinges on the mischaracterization of a 2013 SIDF transaction. He presented a EC$43 million (US$16 million) disbursement to Christophe Harbour as an investment that secured a 30% equity stake for the government. However, clause 5.12 of the official loan agreement explicitly states that the transaction was a loan, not an investment, and was expected to be repaid in full with interest. This crucial detail dismantles the foundation of Drew’s claim, exposing a fundamental misrepresentation of the financial arrangement. Furthermore, official documentation reveals that the government’s shareholding in Christophe Harbour was a nominal US$300, further negating the assertion of a significant ownership stake. This stark contrast between Drew’s portrayal and the documented reality raises serious questions about the administration’s transparency and motives.

An independent valuation conducted by Grant Thornton, a reputable international firm, delivers a further blow to Drew’s narrative. Their assessment placed the government’s total interest in Christophe Harbour between US$6 million and US$9 million, a stark contrast to Drew’s inflated figure of US$100 million. This substantial discrepancy underscores the misleading nature of Drew’s pronouncements and casts doubt on the veracity of the information presented to the public. The prime minister’s reliance on speculative valuations, while dismissing professional, independent assessments, raises concerns about his commitment to presenting an accurate picture of the situation.

Drew’s attempt to portray the Harris administration’s negotiation for 35 acres as a significant loss, compared to a supposed entitlement of 600 acres (based on the purported 30% ownership), is equally misleading. The claim that the government was entitled to 30% of the land is unfounded, as no such agreement existed. The 30% figure, repeatedly emphasized by Drew, appears to be a strategically deployed talking point, devoid of legal or contractual basis. This manipulation of figures serves to distract from the actual historical context and the true nature of the government’s involvement in the project.

The true genesis of the Christophe Harbour saga lies in the actions of the previous Denzil Douglas administration, which granted 2,500 acres of prime land on the Southeast Peninsula to Christophe Harbour investors and provided over EC$130 million in loans through public institutions. Christophe Harbour subsequently built and operated the marina, generating revenue for over a decade, before selling the asset without fully repaying the public loans. Drew’s attempt to shift blame onto the Harris administration for a “bad deal” obscures the historical context and avoids addressing the core issue: the outstanding debt owed to the nation. This selective narrative conveniently sidesteps the responsibility of the previous administration, while simultaneously using this manufactured crisis to justify the recent sale of the publicly funded marina.

The lack of transparency surrounding the recent marina sale further exacerbates the situation. The public is entitled to know the details of the sale agreement, including the final sale price and the specific terms of the transaction. Drew’s avoidance of these critical details fuels suspicion and undermines public trust. To restore confidence, the Prime Minister must release the full sale agreement and valuation, acknowledge the true nature of the SIDF loan, clarify the amount of recovered debt, and cease misleading the public with unsubstantiated ownership claims. The people of St. Kitts and Nevis deserve a full and honest account of the Christophe Harbour affair, not politically expedient narratives that sacrifice transparency for the sake of deflecting criticism. A genuine commitment to accountability requires a forthright acknowledgment of past missteps and a transparent approach to present dealings. Only then can public trust be restored and the nation move forward on a foundation of integrity and accountability.