Prime Minister Drew Denies Responsibility for Setbacks in Nevis’ Private City Project

Prime Minister Terrance Drew finds himself embroiled in a rapidly escalating controversy surrounding land sales and the development of “private billionaire cities” on the island of Nevis, under the newly enacted Special Sustainability Zone (SSZ) legislation. His recent attempt to distance himself from the unfolding situation has been met with accusations of hypocrisy and political maneuvering, further intensifying public scrutiny and fueling the flames of dissent. Just weeks after championing the SSZ bill as a landmark achievement in sustainable development, Dr. Drew now claims that land use in Nevis falls outside his jurisdiction and that neither he nor the Federal Government bears any responsibility for the current land disputes.

The crux of the controversy lies in the perceived contradiction between Dr. Drew’s earlier enthusiastic endorsement of the SSZ legislation and his current attempts to absolve himself of any connection to its implementation. In August 2025, he lauded the bill as a “historic milestone,” emphasizing its potential to attract foreign investment, generate employment, and safeguard the environment. He portrayed the SSZ framework as a cornerstone of his government’s Sustainable Island State Agenda (SISA), promising transparency and accountability in national development. Now, however, he insists that land matters in Nevis are exclusively the purview of the Nevis Island Administration, urging critics to refrain from implicating him or the Federal Government in the ongoing land saga.

This abrupt shift in stance has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters, with many accusing the Prime Minister of political double-speak and a blatant attempt to evade responsibility. Critics argue that the SSZ legislation, conceived and enacted under Dr. Drew’s leadership at the Federal level, effectively dictates the framework within which the Nevis Island Administration must operate. They contend that his attempt to now wash his hands of the matter is a display of political cowardice, particularly in light of the growing public outcry over the potential for large-scale land acquisition by foreign billionaires and the perceived erosion of local land ownership. The perception that the Prime Minister is attempting to deflect blame onto the Nevis Island Administration while simultaneously benefiting from the legislation he himself introduced has further exacerbated public anger.

The controversy has ignited widespread concern among Nevisians, who fear the potential consequences of these “private billionaire cities.” The prospect of hundreds of acres falling into foreign hands has sparked a sense of unease and apprehension, with many expressing fears about the potential displacement of local communities and the loss of their ancestral lands. Religious leaders, such as Pastor Lincoln Connor, have added their voices to the chorus of dissent, warning against the dangers of sacrificing the island’s patrimony for short-term economic gains. Their concerns reflect a growing sentiment that the SSZ framework, despite being presented as a progressive step towards sustainable development, may ultimately result in the dispossession of Nevisian citizens and the irreversible alteration of the island’s cultural landscape.

The SSZ legislation, initially hailed as a visionary policy aimed at aligning St. Kitts and Nevis with global sustainability initiatives, has rapidly devolved into a deeply divisive issue. The Prime Minister’s attempts to distance himself from the unfolding situation have not only failed to quell public anger but have instead amplified accusations of hypocrisy and political opportunism. The controversy has exposed a deep rift between the Federal Government and the Nevis Island Administration, with the latter bearing the brunt of public criticism while being constrained by a framework imposed by the former. The question remains: was the SSZ legislation a genuine attempt to promote sustainable development, or was it a veiled mechanism for facilitating land grabs by foreign investors, ultimately jeopardizing the welfare of the Nevisian people?

The unfolding land dispute in Nevis has become a defining moment in Dr. Drew’s tenure as Prime Minister. His handling of the situation, marked by apparent contradictions and attempts to deflect responsibility, has significantly damaged his political credibility and fueled public distrust. The long-term repercussions of the SSZ legislation and the current controversy remain uncertain, but it is clear that the issue of land ownership and development in Nevis has become a flashpoint for deeper anxieties about national sovereignty, economic inequality, and the future of the island nation. The Prime Minister’s actions, and the ensuing public response, will undoubtedly shape the political landscape of St. Kitts and Nevis for years to come.