Ghosts of failed offshore schools haunt SVG’s CBI debate

I. A country caught in its own past

Every nation is shaped by its failures, but only some are ruled by them. In St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG), the ongoing debate around citizenship by investment (CBI) isn’t really about passports. It’s about political trauma and fear.

At the heart of the government’s resistance lies an unspoken truth: the ghosts of SVG’s offshore medical school era still haunt its corridors of power. That period, marked by unregulated operators, failed programmes, and international embarrassment, left scars on the national psyche.

Rather than build stronger institutions, the Unity Labour Party (ULP) has chosen a safer, easier path: do nothing. But when caution becomes inertia and principle becomes cover for political paralysis, the result is a country stuck while its neighbours move forward.

II. The rise and fall of offshore medical schools in SVG

In the early 2000s, SVG followed a regional trend: licensing offshore medical schools aimed at international students. Schools like St. James Medical School and Kingstown Medical College promised jobs, tourism dollars, and prestige.

Most failed to deliver.

• Accreditation collapsed
• Clinical rotations lacked credibility
• Students were left in legal and academic limbo
• Local trust deteriorated

At its peak, SVG had seven offshore medical schools. As of 2025, most have vanished quietly, without accountability or public inquiry.

“The government didn’t shut them down. It simply disappeared when things fell apart.”

These collapses weren’t caused by bad intentions. They were caused by bad governance.

III. The CBI debate in the Eastern Caribbean

Elsewhere in the Eastern Caribbean, CBI has become a proven tool for development:

• Dominica rebuilt after Hurricane Maria using CBI funds
• Antigua pays down debt and funds social programme
• St. Kitts maintains one of the world’s most credible CBI systems

SVG, however, remains on the sidelines. Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves has famously declared:“We value our citizenship too highly to sell it. We are not for sale.”

Yet there’s a glaring contradiction. SVG already grants citizenship through:

• Permanent residency via investment
• Ministerial discretion
• Marriage

In fact, a British businessman granted SVG citizenship is currently serving prison time in the UK for financial crimes. His passport was issued quietly, with no transparency or public scrutiny.

“The government opposes selling citizenship but quietly gives it away.”

IV. The ULP’s public position vs. its private fears

The ULP hides behind the rhetoric of principle, but its real fear is practical: CBI demands competent regulation. It demands trusted institutions. And SVG lacks both.

• No biometric verification system
• No central digital ID registry
• No legal framework for revoking fraudulent citizenship
• No independent oversight of political finance

The collapse of the medical school sector proved SVG isn’t ready for complex, unregulated international industries. And the government fears CBI would expose that weakness again only this time, on a global stage.

Meanwhile, calls from the opposition for audits into ULP party financing are met with bureaucratic silence.

“The problem isn’t that we can’t regulate. It’s that we don’t want to.”

V. Parallel failures: medical schools vs CBI

The structural similarities between offshore medical schools and the concept of CBI in SVG are striking and instructive. Both hinge on the same dynamic: inviting foreign capital in exchange for intangible national assets.

• For medical schools, it was the nation’s educational credibility.
• For CBI, it’s the sovereignty of citizenship.

1. Regulatory weakness and hesitancy

The offshore school failures were rooted not in concept but in execution and oversight. Licenses were granted without diligence. Oversight was non-existent. Complaints were ignored until reputational harm was irreversible.

CBI faces the same risk. The government speaks of “reputation,” but reputation is born from governance. The failure wasn’t offshore schools. The failure was SVG’s inability to manage them.

2. Outsourcing the national interest

Both schemes outsource parts of the national interest to private actors chasing profit. Medical schools used SVG’s sovereignty to confer degrees with little benefit to SVG. CBI risks selling passports without any guarantee of a meaningful national contribution.

3. The fast money temptation

Both industries lure governments with quick cash. Offshore schools promised jobs, foreign exchange, and economic growth. CBI offers faster money: instant cash in exchange for documents. But in both, the rush blinds policymakers to long-term risks: reputational harm, regulatory capture, and public cynicism.

4. The legacy of failure

The ruins of failed medical schools empty campuses, unpaid workers, lawsuits have bred a deep public scepticism about government competence. That scepticism now poisons the CBI debate. People aren’t just sceptical of CBI. They’re sceptical of this government’s ability to manage anything complex without scandal.

5. Lessons unlearned

Rather than learn from failure, the ULP’s response is avoidance. Instead of building robust frameworks to safely govern CBI, they point to past mistakes as an excuse to do nothing. This isn’t prudence. It’s paralysis disguised as principle.

VI. When is foreign money acceptable? The ULP’s contradictory morality

Here’s where the hypocrisy gets exposed.

Earlier this year, the Minister of Tourism embarked on what was labelled an “investment tour” across the UK, US, and Canada, essentially a begging tour for foreign capital dressed up as high diplomacy.

In April 2025, the government hosted the inaugural UK-SVG Trade and Investment Forum in London, celebrating its success with much fanfare. This event, attended by agencies like DMA Invest, UK Export Finance (UKEF), BOSVG, National Properties SVG, and Invest SVG, was explicitly about welcoming foreign capital into SVG’s economy.

The message was clear: foreign money is good when it comes through the government’s hands.

The selective morality of foreign investment

Yet this embrace of foreign-backed finance sits awkwardly against the government’s fierce rejection of CBI. Gonsalves frames CBI as selling out national sovereignty. But both CBI and these financial partnerships aim to achieve the same end: foreign money funding local development.

Organisations like DMA Invest and UKEF specialise in channelling money from developed economies into small nations. They facilitate loans, guarantees, and investments that allow foreigners to profit from SVG’s infrastructure, tourism, and energy sectors.

VII. What’s the Real Difference?

The only difference is form of exchange:

• CBI grants citizenship rights, status, identity
• UKEF grants contracts, profits, and assets but no passport

Both are transactions. Both benefit foreigners. Both leverage our sovereignty. One is demonised; the other is celebrated.

The government’s issue isn’t principle. It’s control. They reject CBI because it decentralises benefit. They embrace foreign financing because they control who profits.

VIII. The problem isn’t foreign money. It’s power.

The April Forum made one thing crystal clear: foreign capital is entirely acceptable to this administration when it arrives through government channels. Loans, guarantees, and direct investments are praised. Foreign investors are welcomed. British-backed insurance is celebrated.

But CBI? That’s portrayed as beyond the pale. Why? Because CBI gives individuals something the ULP cannot revoke: citizenship. Foreign investment deals, by contrast, remain in the government’s grasp.

IX. The real question Vincentians should ask

If foreign capital is good enough for Mt Wynne, Canouan, and Diamond, why isn’t it good enough through CBI?

If UK Export Finance is acceptable, why not direct citizenship-linked investment?

Why the double standard?

The answer isn’t sovereignty.

The answer is control.

The answer is politics.

The answer is power.

The ULP trusts itself, not the people.

CBI’s danger isn’t criminals, it’s loss of control over who benefits from SVG’s assets.

And so, Vincentians must ask: Whose interests are really being protected?



Vincentian abroad 

The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].