Government senator Jemalie John has accused the opposition of being “obsessed with fear‑mongering” over foreign investors and land.
He made the point as he backed the amendments to St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ Companies Act as a pragmatic step to improve the ease of doing business and shed what he portrayed as an unfair, punitive image of the jurisdiction.
Contributing to the debate on the Companies (Amendment) Bill 2026, John said the opposition’s response – led by Opposition Leader Ralph Gonsalves — was aimed at frightening Vincentians into believing that the government was dismantling protections against foreign ownership and corporate abuse, when the core safeguards in law would remain intact.
“I am not entirely sure why we have this obsession with this fearmongering,” John told Parliament.
“We always want to persuade the Vincentian public that there are foreigners out there who are just lying in the wings, ready to come and steal Vincentian lands from underneath us.”
John said he regretted having to “keep reminding” the public about the alien landholding regime and the Companies Act’s existing protections, and stressed that the government was not scrapping the requirement that foreign purchasers of land be licensed and registered.
Narrowing an ‘over‑wide’ net
The amendment, which Parliament approved, removed 2016 changes to the law made under the Gonsalves-led Unity Labour Party administration.
John, a lawyer, focused on Section 338 of the Companies Act, which defines when an external company is deemed to be carrying on business in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and therefore must register.
He said the 2016 amendment had gone too far, especially its first limb, which required registration where an external company “has shares” — directly or indirectly — in another external company.
“Now, having shares is not the same as owning land… it goes on to say have shares, whether directly or indirectly. And so, the net is cast so wide that there is a duty to register even those who do not do any business in St. Vincent and the Grenadines.”
John argued that the 2016 provision, as drafted and interpreted, could even “capture” investment funds and other entities with only marginal or indirect exposure to a Vincentian asset, forcing them into the local regulatory framework despite having no real commercial footprint in the country.
For him, this went to the heart of the country’s competitiveness, saying, “That affects how attractive St. Vincent and the Grenadines is to do business when you cast a net so wide, requiring so many different people and businesses to register.”
John said repealing the paragraph would not dismantle the core protection governing foreign ownership of Vincentian land.
The senator said the existing rule that an external company is deemed to be doing business, and must register, if it “owns a legal or equitable interest in land situated in the state of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines” remains.
“So, all of this long talk about people wanting to come and own land and not going to be registered — it is a lie. It is a lie,” John said.
From punishment to proportionate penalties
John also defended the overhaul of the penalties regime, which Gonsalves had attacked as a massive giveaway to delinquent external companies and negligent lawyers.
Under the old framework, unregistered external companies faced an EC$350‑per‑day fine that could accumulate indefinitely, while late filing of “fundamental changes” attracted EC$100 per day.
Gonsalves argued that cutting these to a monthly charge, capping liabilities, and then overlaying a six‑month amnesty at 50% of outstanding sums amounted to erasing millions of dollars in penalties for companies that had ignored the law for years.
John countered that the opposition was clinging to a vision of company law as a “punitive trap” rather than as a framework to foster a “thriving, compliant, and dynamic business environment.
“You listen to the opposition, and you will walk out with the impression that we need legislation in place to penalise people and penalise them without a cap,” he said.
“Well, how are you going to foster business in St. Vincent with that kind of rhetoric and that kind of approach?”
He said the switch from open‑ended daily fines to capped, lower penalties signalled a shift in policy.
“By transitioning to a capped penalty, we are sending a clear message to the private sector that we want regulatory compliance, not corporate bankruptcy.”
The extension of the filing window from 30 to 60 days was, in his view, recognition of “modern administrative realities” rather than leniency.
“Thirty days is not a long time … Changing this compliance window acknowledges the modern administrative realities business owners face. It gives them a fair opportunity to organise their affairs without the immediate threat of punitive action,” John said.
He reminded colleagues that even in civil litigation, the rules allow relief from sanctions when deadlines are missed, and argued that a similar philosophy should apply in the corporate registry, rather than a relentless EC$350‑per‑day metre.
Amnesty as economic pragmatism
On the most controversial element of the six‑month amnesty allowing companies to settle historic penalties at 50% of the amount due, with strike‑off powers temporarily suspended, John described the measure as “perhaps the most compassionate and economically sound provision before us”.
He said the opposition narrative that the government was “giving away” hundreds of thousands of dollars ignored the hard realities of cross‑border debt collection and the experience under the previous administration, when significant penalty liabilities sat on the books but were largely uncollectable.
“Pursuing cross‑border debt collection or international litigation is expensive. It is complex, and sometimes the cost of pursuing the debt exceeds the monetary value of the regulatory debt itself,” John said.
He added that this explained “why even under the previous administration they couldn’t collect it”.
He contrasted the current uproar over partial penalty relief with what he framed as the opposition’s own record on tax concessions.
The senator cited budget figures showing EC$624.1 million in revenue forgone between 2002 and 2025, including EC$152.3 million in 2025 alone through various concession programmes.
“So, we could let go over 600 million in concessions, but you come here now making a fuss over some money here for regulatory compliance and saying that this bill is legal gymnastics,” he said, referring to the ULP.
“The only bill that came in this house within recent time that could appropriately be described as legal gymnastics was your vaccine mandate,” he said, referring to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate that Gonsalves’ government imposed in 2021, resulting in hundreds of public sector workers losing their jobs.
John insisted that bringing companies “back from the brink of deregistration and safely back into the formal economy” would ultimately serve both the state and the wider public.
He said it would clear long‑standing, artificial receivables from the books, free regulators to focus on active, viable firms, and keep employers in operation so they could “create jobs and continue paying into the economy that we are all trying to grow”.
‘Not deregulating foreign land ownership’
John responded directly to Gonsalves’ warnings that the amendment, especially its limb dealing with indirect shareholding in companies that own land — would weaken the country’s grip on beneficial ownership and risk reputational damage with bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force
He said this misrepresented the effect of the bill, adding that the section that makes an external company registrable if it “owns a legal or equitable interest in land”, was untouched and had “always been in the Act”.
“Secondly, we are not deregulating foreign ownership of Vincentian land,” he said.
“The actual foreign purchaser still requires the appropriate landholding licence and remains registrable … So, all of this long talk about people want come and land and not going to be registered — it is a lie,” the senator said.
In that context, he framed the opposition’s repeated references to foreigners “stealing” land as a calculated appeal to anxiety rather than a fair reading of the legislation: a classic example, he said, of “fearmongering”.