Opposition’s Attacks on SSZ Show They’d Rather See Nevis Fail
The opposition’s latest outburst against the Special Sustainability Zone (SSZ) has once again exposed their warped priorities. While the government and the Nevis Island Administration are working to attract sustainable investment that creates jobs, protects the environment, and secures the Federation’s future, the People’s Labour Party (PLP) and its leader, Dr Timothy Harris, are throwing up smokescreens and half-truths.
Their claim of “secret land deals” and “selling out the birthright” is not only baseless but deeply hypocritical. After all, prominent opposition figures such as Janice Daniel-Hodge have sold private land for personal profit. It raises a serious question: why is it acceptable for them to line their own pockets but unacceptable for Nevis to chart a sustainable, carefully legislated development path through the SSZ?
The SSZ is not a reckless giveaway. It is one of the boldest frameworks ever introduced in the Federation – a model that requires developers to prove they can generate renewable energy, manage water and waste, safeguard heritage, and build resilient infrastructure. Unlike the old-style deals of the past, this legislation locks in sustainability as the price of admission.
So why would the opposition oppose a model that benefits both the people and the environment? Is it because they would rather see Nevis stagnate than thrive under policies they didn’t create? Is it because they can’t stomach the idea of Premier Mark Brantley and the government leading with vision, while they cling to the past?
The truth is clear: the SSZ offers Nevis and the wider Federation a chance to lead globally on sustainable island development. The opposition’s refusal to support it is less about policy and more about politics – an attempt to score points even if it means holding back progress for the people of Nevis.
At a time when climate change, rising costs, and economic pressures demand bold solutions, the SSZ is a lifeline. Those who stand in its way are not defending the people; they are defending irrelevance.
