OPINION: Saint Lucia’s Citizenship by Investment Programme: A Controversial Trade-Off

The Citizenship by Investment Programme (CIP) of Saint Lucia was launched with the intention of spurring economic growth by attracting foreign direct investment through the sale of citizenship. It was marketed as a tool to boost national development by providing the government with alternative revenue streams, particularly important in a small, resource-constrained island economy. Yet nearly a decade since its inception, the programme has come under sharp and sustained scrutiny. Both local stakeholders and international observers have raised alarms over its weak performance, perceived mismanagement, and far-reaching implications for national sovereignty and global diplomatic relations.

In comparison to its OECS counterparts, namely Saint Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, and Dominica, Saint Lucia’s CIP has consistently and woefully underperformed – which is puzzling, to say the very least. These countries have been more successful in mobilising substantial revenues through well-designed, competitive, and relatively transparent programmes. A key limitation of Saint Lucia’s approach has been its disproportionate emphasis on the real estate investment option. This channel tends to benefit private developers far more than the public purse, as the funds rarely make their way into the central treasury. In contrast, the direct contribution option—where applicants pay directly into a government-controlled fund—offers greater fiscal returns and transparency. Consequently, the Saint Lucian state has not been able to realise the full economic benefits the programme was intended to deliver. Notably, the current administration’s decision to discontinue the use of the National Economic Fund as the primary conduit for channelling Citizenship by Investment (CIP) revenues into the Consolidated Fund for development purposes was highlighted with concern in the IMF’s 2024 Article IV Consultation Report (see page 10). This shift raises questions about the transparency of CIP revenue use and creates ambiguity regarding whether such funds are being directed towards recurrent expenditures—an approach the IMF has consistently cautioned against.

Beyond its financial inefficiencies, the Saint Lucia CIP has become increasingly embroiled in controversy. Persistent allegations of weak governance, insufficient transparency, and lax due diligence continue to plague the programme. One of the most startling claims is that more than 60 000 individuals now hold Saint Lucian passports through the CIP, a figure that represents approximately 33.5 per cent of the island’s native population. These individuals, for the most part, have no tangible links to Saint Lucia. Many have never visited the country, cannot identify it on a map, and have little or no intention of integrating into its society. Even more concerning is the reality that Saint Lucian citizens are entirely unaware of who these new passport holders are, where they come from, or what risks—financial, reputational, or otherwise—they may pose.

This disconnection between citizenship and identity raises profound questions. Citizenship, at its core, is meant to represent a bond of loyalty, shared values, and mutual responsibility. Yet, under the current configuration of the CIP, citizenship is being sold to individuals who remain complete strangers to the culture, needs, and aspirations of the Saint Lucian people. It is no wonder, then, that international confidence in such programmes is waning.

Indeed, the growing unease among global actors has prompted action. The European Union has advanced legislation that could potentially revoke visa-free access to the Schengen Area for countries operating Citizenship by Investment schemes—Saint Lucia included. The implications of such a move are severe. For many Saint Lucians, visa-free access to Europe is not a luxury but a vital necessity. It enables travel to nearby territories such as Martinique for work, family visits, education, and medical treatment. The loss of this privilege would impose steep personal and economic costs, particularly on low- and middle-income citizens who depend on this access for opportunities and essential services.

At the same time, institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have been consistent in their recommendations to OECS governments regarding the responsible use of CIP revenues. The IMF advises that these funds should not be used to cover recurrent expenditures, which are unsustainable, but rather to reduce public debt, invest in transformative capital projects, and build fiscal buffers against external shocks such as natural disasters or global economic downturns. Unfortunately, Saint Lucia has not demonstrated clear adherence to these guidelines. There is a notable absence of major infrastructure projects or resilience initiatives that can be directly linked to CIP proceeds. This calls into question the overall utility of the programme.

Given these concerns, it is fair to ask whether Saint Lucia’s engagement in a Citizenship by Investment Programme has truly served the national interest. The contrast is particularly stark when viewed against countries like Barbados and The Bahamas—both of which possess stronger passports and have consciously refrained from launching similar programmes. These nations have chosen to uphold the intrinsic value of citizenship, maintaining its role as a covenant between the individual and the nation, rather than reducing it to a commodity for sale.

The broader consequences of continuing down this path could be dire. As the number of CIP passport holders grows—many of whom have no real stake in the country’s future—Saint Lucia risks eroding the very meaning of its national identity. What we are witnessing could be construed as a form of modern recolonisation, not through territorial conquest, but through economic vulnerability and transactional governance. In this scenario, citizenship is no longer a marker of belonging but a convenient tool for external actors to leverage Saint Lucia’s sovereign privileges for their own benefit.

This is not merely a matter of poor fiscal policy; it is a deep ethical dilemma that cuts to the heart of nationhood. If we continue to treat citizenship as a commodity to be auctioned off to the highest bidder—or worse, engaging in widespread and illegal discounting of our passport—prompting a race to the bottom, we risk undermining the very fabric of our society and the credibility of our state on the international stage.

In conclusion, while the CIP was introduced as a strategy for economic diversification and fiscal resilience, its execution has left much to be desired. The programme’s underwhelming financial performance, its opaque operations, and its potential to damage diplomatic relations and compromise national dignity make it a policy that demands immediate and comprehensive review. As Saint Lucia navigates an increasingly complex global environment, it must decide whether to continue down a path that jeopardises its integrity or to reclaim the true value of its citizenship for generations to come.