Instead of answering questions about the Special Sustainability Zone (SSZ) Bill and his own family’s land dealings, Premier Mark Brantley has turned his sights on opposition politician Janice. In a recent social‑media post styled like a courtroom exchange, he asserted that she is both an executor and beneficiary of her father’s estate—including 25 acres of land in southern Nevis—and implied she personally profits from the sale of those lands while telling others not to sell. The post, he said, would include “receipts.” None were provided.
What the premier claims
According to his Facebook post, Brantley suggests that Janice’s role as executor means she alone decided to sell the estate’s land, and as a beneficiary she will keep the proceeds. He frames this as a conflict of interest and hypocrisy. Janice has publicly denied receiving “millions” from any property sales. As of this writing, the Premier has not released documents supporting his allegations.
Why this matters
- Executors have duties, not unchecked power. Under estate law, an executor must carry out the wishes in a will and act in the best interest of all beneficiaries. They can’t simply sell property for personal gain. Any sale of estate land would typically require court approval or the agreement of other beneficiaries.
- Trial by social media. Accusing a political opponent of misconduct without presenting evidence is a tactic to distract from other issues. Brantley’s post reads like a verdict, but it lacks independent documentation and denies the accused a chance to respond. As a trained lawyer, he knows that complex probate matters cannot be adjudicated on Facebook.
- A pattern of deflection. By focusing on Janice’s alleged hypocrisy, Brantley sidesteps legitimate questions about the SSZ Bill, conflicts of interest involving his own family’s real‑estate business and the need for transparency in land sales. This is consistent with his repeated practice of turning debates into personal attacks rather than providing clear answers.
Where’s the evidence?
Janice’s supporters argue that if the Premier has proof of wrongdoing, he should release it through the proper channels, not on social media. They note that she and other beneficiaries are entitled to proceeds from their father’s estate under the will. Without evidence of misconduct, the Premier’s accusations amount to innuendo.
What should happen next?
- Independent inquiry. If there are legitimate concerns about how any estate land was sold, an independent review by the courts or an ethics committee is appropriate. Publicly naming and shaming without due process undermines confidence in the legal system.
- Equal transparency. Leaders cannot demand openness from their opponents while stonewalling questions about their own dealings. The Premier should release documentation of his family’s real‑estate transactions and any SSZ-related agreements to prove he has nothing to hide.
- Focus on the law. Nevisians deserve a substantive debate about the SSZ Act’s implications for land rights, compensation and development. Personal attacks are a distraction from the bigger issue—whether the legislation protects ordinary citizens or primarily benefits political insiders and foreign investors.
Until receipts are produced and due process is followed, accusations remain just that—accusations. The Premier’s courtroom theatrics may sway some supporters, but they do not substitute for transparency, accountability and sound policy.
Stay informed and take action: For more investigations and updates, visit www.thesknreport.com. If you have information or documents related to this or any other issue, www.thesknreport.com/tip-submission securely and anonymously.