Why was it necessary for a ratification of a lease between the government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the Canouan Resorts? Could such an act on the part of the then government embolden subsequent administrations to sell Canouan outright? Is there any danger of Canouan being allowed to secede from the governance of St. Vincent and the Grenadines? True, in October 2025, a Canadian firm proposed a new governance structure for the island. Internal governance of Canouan is critical to this entire process. Will the governance of Canouan remain under the national government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines where the whole of thirty two islands are part of that constitutional monarchy? What kind of relationship would exist between Canouan and our sovereign nation? Is this a proposal for a foreign entity to seek a sort of separate governance? How will this function? Our history tells us that once upon a time, a certain minister of government went to Canouan and the rest is history.
Did that certain government of that day in the 1900s acquire lands in Canouan through unauthorized acts? If so, what are those unauthorized acts? Could any government of today give permission to another foreign entity and allow them to provide a new form of governance structure on Canouan? Is this a new constitutional route to be pursued and or encouraged by leaders who are not too keen on holding on to our patrimony? Why allow others to participate in the governance of an island like Canouan? What exactly could be the driving force behind all of these new maneuverings? There are other voices from Canouan that need to be heard even more loudly. Those voices should say things like, “Canouan is NOT FOR SALE.”
Again, the question is, are we being slowly guided to part with our patrimony? Who was responsible in the first place to sell lands in Canouan for purposes other than public use? Was the sale initiated/ done for public interests? Was there some sort of trickery or manipulation of islanders to part with Canouan? If so, why? Did the ratification of the leases in Canouan on 31 October 1990, or sometime prior, open the floodgates for any one to navigate their way inwards into our islands, into the minds and the lives of our people? In so doing, was there an offering of their own form of a governance structure?Is this what the newest Canadian entrepreneur is about? Isn’t it true that gentrification is possible within the island of Canouan or for that matter, any other segment of the islands of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? Are some of our leaders only keen on the sale of lands (within the Grenadines, our coastal areas on the mainland or wherever) no matter what the cost? Are we as a people afraid to hold our elected representatives accountable on this score?
To begin with, and yes, we must begin from the beginning, again. Is it somewhat a moot point in the context of the current issue of raising awareness about internal governance of the same island of Canouan? We begin, anyway. When one of our former Prime Ministers of this country, the late Sir James Mitchell made a public statement reported in the Searchlight newspaper, April 29, 2016, many among us like myself was not particularly interested in the arguments but there was one aspiring representative who raised “significant discussions” as to the economic viability of land acquisition in the Grenadines. Can anyone recall? The newspapers were littered with numerous utterances against the idea of the sale of lands in Canouan. But as soon as that particular gentleman gained a foothold in parliament, all went quiet. Sir James Mitchell’s words were reported and this is what was said,
“The former prime minister explained that during British colonial rule, the island of Canouan was ceded to the Snagg family, who then, in later years, sold it to the imperial government of SVG, a sale that is well-documented within the national records.”
Up to the present time, there have been several individuals locally and abroad who were left with unanswered questions. What did Sir James Mitchell mean when he said that the whole island was “ceded” to the Snagg family? Was this term “ceded” to be interpreted within the context of a sort of Treaty arrangement that may have been made with the monarch and the island of Canouan itself, separate and apart from the mainland St. Vincent?
This other information on ownership of Canouan according to Sir James Mitchell goes contrary to the following extracted from the website of Discover SVG,
“In 1770 King George III “gifted” Canouan to 5 families: Brisbane, Decato, De Gazeau, Patrice and Snagg. The Snagg brothers eventually accumulated 1,700 of the 1,830 acres available which they mostly used for the cultivation of sugar. When sugar became less profitable they switched to cultivation of cotton and wind-powered cotton gins were built at Carenage, Barbruce and Rameau.”
Whether the island was “ceded” to the Snagg family or “gifted” to several families, there must come a question to the minds of the reasonable person as to the nature of ownership and or co-ownership both at law and in equity and how that legal and equitable ownership changed between the 1770s (date of acquisition of Canouan by the Snagg family) up to and including the 1990s when it was reportedly bought by the then led James Mitchell administration of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. You see, if “ceded” or “gifted” one wonders whether a new proposed construct on internal governance was also part of a scheme of things. Who actually is behind such a scheme to allow other foreigners to dictate normal administration on the lives and livelihoods of all who live on Canouan?
Also, one wonders whether Canouan was ever designated as land for sale in the manner in which such sale was undertaken. Did the government have a proprietary interest at all, having become “purchaser”, and if so, can the government use this to force a sale of lands in Canouan through a construct called the Ratification of Lease against the presumed original wishes of King George III and the descendants of the Snagg family? Of course, caution must be advised here because there are so many questions and very little answers. My belly burns. I feel deep within me that something strange happened. I am my father’s child indeed.
Canouan is extremely special to the Snagg family originally and to other families who now live on the island. No one I am sure is against investment opportunities that may exist. But it is the sale of our patrimony which can amount to another whole ‘new game’. While many sleep (slept) and or smiled at those who pretended it (whatever that ‘it’ represents/represented) is (was) for our good, there may have been another agenda and very often the situation plays out in subsequent years. Gentrification is also a real and present danger anywhere and at the heart of our civilisation, our Vincentian experiences, we cannot continue to be asleep in this way. We must remain vigilant as to whatever else is being sold right under our noses.
In the absence of more ‘concrete evidence’ besides mere words, the conclusion of the matter is that at some point in the 1700s, the reigning monarch King George III had reason enough to either make a ‘gift’ of Canouan to the Snagg family and others or the entire island itself was “ceded” to the Snagg family alone. I have this inner something that tells me, the entire island was under the administration of the Snagg family at one point in this island’s history.
It was from this beginning that Sir James Mitchell’s administration would have allegedly bought those lands which have been the focus of much controversy over the years. It is about sovereignty, ownership and what belongs to us as a people must never be taken from us. This sort of ‘melee’ set the pace for land acquisition by foreign direct investors, it raised the issue as to whether there should be an amendment to the Alien Land Holding License, and the sale of our patrimony. This issue of the ratification of the lease on Canouan may be seen as laying the foundation on which several other robust discussions emerged and are emerging. Land is everything in our small island developing states. Let us never forget this. Land is everything.
Were the lands bought legally from the Snagg family by the then Mitchell led administration and if so, why proceed to ratify the lease arrangements with foreign direct investors additionally, through which ‘ownership’ of the said lands were (are) held? If a ratification of a lease was done, and it was done and became part of the laws of this nation, was it not to somehow provide a strategically strategic “cure” to possible prior defects within the purchase agreement/lease arrangement or contract for sale of land or to “cure” some unauthorized acts on the part of the government of the day?
Did the Mitchell led administration exceed its actual legal authority but acted within so called ‘apparent authority’ and the government of that day wanted to honor their actions? Why a Lease Ratification Act? We remind ourselves of what the narrative says,
“Ratification is a later, intentional adoption of an act that was unauthorized or defective when taken. If valid, it relates back to the original date and makes the act enforceable as if authorized from the start, subject to third-party rights and mandatory law.”
So what was that act or actions that were unauthorised or defective by the then government? Was the Lease Ratification Act an intentional adoption of such acts or actions taken to make the acquisition of lands in Canouan enforceable so that the unauthorized or defective action in the first place was now seen as authorised or non-defective in any which way? Where are the documents to substantiate the claim as to whether Canouan as a whole was ‘ceded’ to the Snagg family or ‘gifted’ to them? What is it that is so important that we have to look again at this scenario?
Let us digress a bit. In the absence of the ‘instruments that originally outlined the specifications associated with the ‘gift’ of such lands in Canouan, or the “ceded” status of Canouan, I came across an issue on mainland SVG.
A Petition from the Caribs of Morne Ronde following the 1902 Volcanic Eruption among other things, detailed that when lands were also “gifted” to the Caribs in Morne Ronde they were” to possess without individual freehold rights and to work as a community”. True, this was nearly two hundred years on but the principles embedded within Land Law takes a considerable time to “churn”.
My point?
I am going out on a limb here and hopefully I hold tight to the ancestral branch of the Snagg family. My DNA findings are sufficiently established, undisputed, I am a descendant of that same Snagg family. Yes, I can prove it. Therefore, is it likely that lands held by the Snagg family of Canouan were “gifted” in this customary manner so that the Snagg family were to “possess without individual freehold rights and to work as a community?” Canouan was likely to be a freehold property but not held for the benefits of individual freehold rights/interests. If so, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the entire Snagg family held those lands without individual freehold rights? The Snagg family is the Snagg family and is still the Snagg family.
A few years ago, (2016) while working on another project during my tenure in the UK, I responded reluctantly to a request for my DNA. To my utter amazement, notifications to me are still active and more recently I was matched at the confidence level to that same Snagg family (an aged descendant who still lives in the USA) with over 150 centimorgans. I am a member/descendant of that same Snagg family to whom Canouan was “gifted”. I am making the point loud and clear.
No, I am not interested in ancestral lands as I am well endowed with other God given gifts and blessings too numerous to mention. But I am one who seeks justice for all! If those lands were taken illegally, they should be returned to the Snagg family. I believe that Canouan was a freehold estate/freehold property. There should be beneficiaries of the leasehold arrangements that currently exist. No leasehold should be sold because at law, they cannot be sold.
I have to ask questions again. For emphasis. Could there have been an unauthorised or defective act/acts done in acquiring the lands “gifted” to the Snagg family? Did the state under the leadership of the former Prime Minister Sir James Mitchell acquire/purchase lands in Canouan and that the process was illegal and unlawful? Could this have been the reason for the ratification of the lease arrangements on lands that were legally owned by the Snagg family and an illegal and unlawful sale took place? Was this part of the reasons why descendants of the Snagg family demonstrated for years as they sought clarification on ownership rights to their ancestral lands? Why those lands in Canouan? Why sell and or purchase those specific parcels of lands in Canouan? Is there a plan to move out all indigenous persons on that island? Why is there another bid to discuss and accept foreign administration of the said Canouan?
Now, a freehold property or estate is one that possesses what is known as a “fee simple absolute in possession.” From the little I have gleaned over the years, I am still learning. However, according to the Oxford Reference,
“The freehold estate: one of only two forms of ownership of land that, under the Law of Property Act 1925, can exist as a legal estate. All others take effect as equitable interests. The “fee simple” indicates ownership that is not liable to end upon any person’s death, with the expiration of time, or on the failure of a particular line of heirs. “Absolute” means that the owner’s rights are not conditional or liable to terminate on the occurrence of any event (except the exercise of a right of re-entry – Law of Property (Amendment) Act 1926). “In possession” means that the owner’s rights are immediate, thus future interests do not qualify, but possession need not imply actual physical occupation (for instance, a person in receipt of rents and profits can be said to be in possession).”
The above is legal language as much as it will take a common sense approach to understand what is common to all mankind of reasonable understanding. Could it be that ratification of the lease on Canouan was to defeat the legality of the “Fee simple” ? Can the “fee simple absolute in possession” be defeated by a Lease Ratification Act? Is Parliament supreme within our constitutional monarchy – a small island developing state that is still learning so many things within a global context? Why a Lease Ratification Act that touches and concerns lands that were granted/gifted/ceded to a family – in this case, the Snagg family? Why? It must be noted that Parliament is not supreme but it is the constitution of our country that is the Supreme law. One of the fundamental rights that is protected is that of deprivation of property. This to my mind ‘speaks’ volumes.
PART TWO
The Snagg family owned Canouan, that ownership of Canouan was/is not liable to end upon any of the deaths of the original owners nor the descendants of the said original Snagg owners, those to whom Canouan was either “ceded” or “gifted” in the first place. Put another way, I will ask the question. Did ownership of a “fee simple in absolute possession” end in this case? Could it end? If so, please help me, help us to understand this so-called legal construct, known to us as the Canouan Lease Ratification Act that was pushed through parliament.
I am repeating myself for emphasis sake. Could it be that ratification of the Canouan lease also meant that even if there was expiration of the time of the persons who owned Canouan, that the legal estate – the remainder in the “fee simple in absolute possession” – still indicated ownership by the Snagg family up to today’s date? If so, why rob the family of what was legally inheritable and rightfully theirs? Could it be that the ratification of the Canouan lease meant that it was to defeat the current claims by surviving family members, that even if there was failure of a particular line of heirs, that the land still belonged to the Snagg family? The Snagg family line runs deep. The original Snagg family descendants, such a rich ancestral lineage, still writes, speaks, moves and so on.
Again, the question remains as to whether Canouan was held by the Snagg family as a “fee simple absolute in possession”. I am making the bold statement that something is not quite right with the ratification of the lease arrangement in Canouan. It is indeed high time for the remaining family members who are descendants of those original Snagg family to do some more investigation as to what really belongs to them. Only when one dies that one cannot be and do! Canouan is home to the Snagg family no matter what others may have us think.
Further, I return to this issue, as to Canouan being held by the Snagg family and was this without individual freehold rights attached as it appeared to be the customary practice in those many centuries ago? Was Canouan conveyed to the Snagg family in similar fashion as lands conveyed as a practice to indigenous families in the days of the Imperial government of St. Vincent by reigning monarchs?
What does it mean to hold land as “absolute” within the meaning of “fee simple absolute” ? This refers to, in this context, that the Snagg family as owners of Canouan according to the research, held those lands as owners whose rights were not conditional or liable to be terminated on the occurrence of any event save and except if there was a right of re-entry by the monarch according to the Law of Property (Amendment) Act 1926. We are now in the year 2025. King George III has passed into the great beyond. By the way, where is the original documentation on that “gift” of land?
Also, note that the word “fee” is reflective of the owner of the land having an estate that is a “vested, heritable and present possessory interest” in land. A fee simple absolute is said to be the highest estate permitted by law, and therefore it gives the holder the full possessory rights and obligations now and in the future. The land is “fee simple” and is held indefinitely so that is why it is called a freehold. Yet, there might be limitations of course as to how the land may be used or it may be subject to the matter as to whether the state should acquire such lands to be used for public purposes (compulsory purchase). But Canouan is being used as the bedrock of private investors. The record shows!
So, why were lands sold in Canouan? Could it be that someone (a family member with other intentions) wanted Canouan for themselves and because they couldn’t own it, they sold it? Forgive me, I am presumptuous in my thoughts. I am many generations down from Dr. Henry Snagg and William Snagg and others. Their names came up in several of my maternal DNA searches as well as so many others from the Grenadines.
I digress again. Anyhow, I keep coming back to this point. Why sell lands in Canouan to foreigners? Why? Why create a legal “anomaly” – A lease Ratification Act? Someone did ask whether it was necessary to create such an Act. There was silence in that particular conversation and that is what set me to thinking all those years. Leaseholds according to law cannot be sold as freehold property. While my father John Bayliss Frederick lived, he was passionate about understanding this new legal construct of a Lease Ratification Act that he claimed was contrary to the settled black letter law of the Law of Property Acts.
True, I am new to the legal profession and have sat at his feet many months. Studying law for the past more than years still doesn’t qualify me to get to the root of the matter like my Dad. His question I wish to echo here as he once asked: “who was so determined to sell Canouan as to rob other family members of their patrimony and parliament is not supreme in our islands. Something is definitely wrong there?” See, Dad was questioning the legality of sale and the powers of Parliament to enact legislation such as a Ratification of Lease Act just specific to Canouan.
Nonetheless, we get back to that part about private property and “freehold” property that were classified as “leasehold” and it does appear, such leasehold is allowable for sale. True, amendments to legislation over time become necessary. Could there be something “amiss” when it comes to property law specifically applicable to Canouan? The lands as far as is known were not held as fee simple conditional but let me add, maybe they were! You see, it is that Lease Ratification Act that fails to satisfy this gut feeling my father expressed back then. As I read, he was correct. Why ratify leases and make it law?
I am back to this reasoning. When it comes to the term “in possession”, specific to Canouan, one must now question whether this issue meant that those first members of the Snagg family’s rights were immediate and that those future interests in the same land do not qualify to take! Repeating, it means that those in the future (up to present time – the future interests manifesting now), do not qualify to possess the land.
Could it be that ratification of the current lease was an attempt to defeat these ‘future interests’ of lands held originally by the Snagg family to whom Canouan was “gifted”? Could it also mean that even though “possession need not imply actual physical occupation”, that a person in receipt of rents and profits can be said to be in possession of lands belonging to the Snagg family and that a Lease Ratification Act would defeat such claims?
Is it therefore true to say that all leased property (in the possession of the Canouan Resorts et al) are deemed to be considered or treated at law as freehold property within the meaning of the domestic Ratification of Lease Act? If so, how is this allowable? Is the Ratification of the Canouan Lease Act be considered lawful but not legal? So, as far as I am aware, according to black letter law, rights of ownership to land can only be held in two ways which are freehold and leasehold. If lands owned by the Snagg family were on a freehold basis, then those lands are still owned by the Snagg family given the operation of settled law. Those lands were held as freehold as “gifted” and or “ceded” by King George III and were held and are still being held as “fee simple absolute in possession” according to settled law. Isn’t it the law that freehold property has no limit and can go on indefinitely?
We must get it clear. Otherwise, these questions are to be repeated:
- Could it be that if these lands in Canouan were bought by the government of the day, then this was an illegal transaction according to settled law and this may very well be the singular reason why there was a Lease Ratification Act and an attempt to ‘treat’ leasehold property as freehold?
- Was the Canouan Lease Ratification Act an attempt to “cure” the injustice done?
- Couldn’t it therefore be concluded that the lands in Canouan are still held by the Snagg family to whom they were “ceded” and or “gifted” by King George III in the 1700s and descendants have a claim against the government ?
On the other hand, this thing about leasehold property, it is also known as a term of years absolute. A leasehold is derived from freehold property or another leasehold interests which has two major elements:
- There could be a fixed duration – a term that the freeholder and the leaseholder agreed upon. This length of a lease arrangement could be quite flexible. A freehold and a leasehold are completely different. There could be a residential assured short term tenancy like six months or so or longer lease arrangements to cover periods of five or more years. If there is a business, residential purpose or a resort/commercial purpose, the arrangement could be 99 years plus!
- Exclusive possession given under this lease arrangement would allow the leaseholder to exclude every other from the premises, including the freeholder but for the duration of the lease once they comply with the terms of the lease.
The research also mentioned commonholds where this system makes allowances for a number of units to share a freehold so that a development of flats are accommodated. It was noted that previously such units/flats needed to have leasehold units.
The questions we must now ask ourselves as citizens of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are:-
1. Whether additional arrangements are being made for other leasehold arrangements to capitalise on the existing Canouan Lease Ratification Act and if so, why?
2. Could gentrification of Canouan as well as other designated parts of the mainland become a real possibility?
3. Is there a case to be made for the amendment of the Canouan Lease Ratification Act and if so, is there the political will to address this matter with utmost urgency?
4. What are the implications for sale of other such indigenous lands to foreigners?
5. Should there be a debate on the merits of foreign direct investment and ownership of lands by foreigners or other nationals as freehold as opposed to leasehold?
Shouldn’t there be a request for the original copy of the “gift of lands” to the Snagg family and or the instrument that detailed “ceded” to the Snagg family? Could this matter of understanding and debating the Ratification of Canouan Lease hold the secrets to making sure that a similar undertaking about our patrimony is NEVER allowed?
I often hear my grandmother say things like, “Child, donkey say, the world is not level at all.”
I conclude with this final question and a comment:-
Are there other Snagg family members who wish to pursue this matter of the sale of lands in Canouan that once belonged to the Snagg family?
“Justice must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done”. This is a famous legal maxim from a 1924 case: R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McMarthy. The public must continue to have confidence in the legal process each day. There ought to be fairness but also transparency and impartiality. In the interest of justice, you the members of the public must see justice as being fair and unbiased.
