Four months after the Cabinet approved the EC$75 million Social Security Scheme investment into Jolly Beach Resort, the government and opposition have been locked in a debate over the viability of the decision as well as the long-term sustainability of the social security fund.

The Gaston Browne administration was steadfast in its belief that the investment plan, which involved the government injecting $75 million into the scheme and then transferring ownership of the resort to the scheme, was a win-win situation for Antigua and Barbuda, arguing that the plan would maximize the returns on investment, generate sustainable profits, and reduce government debt to the scheme.

However, it was swiftly condemned by the opposition as “reckless,” “scandalous,” and “outrageous,” citing a lack of financial transparency surrounding the move.

Since then, both parties—led by former United Progressive Party leader Harold Lovell and Prime Minister Gaston Browne—have sought to engage the media space to sway public opinion towards their side of the argument.

On Monday, 25 August 2025, the nation formally heard the arguments made by both sides regarding the move.

The resolution formally presented to Parliament asked two specific questions: whether the transfer of Jolly Beach Resort to Social Security to retire a portion of the principal delinquent debt owed by government is in accordance with the Social Security Act Cap 408, and whether the proposed transfer will secure the long-term viability of the Social Security Fund.

PM Browne spent much of his presentation arguing that the plan was part of his administration’s “empowerment capitalism” model, explaining that transferring Jolly Beach to Social Security would generate superior returns compared to traditional bank deposits.

“Social Security has a surplus of in excess of $30 million on deposit, and the liabilities are far less than $30 million…so by the time we commence our $3 million plus every month in payments, Social Security will find itself having a surplus cash flow of about $5 million every month.”

“From 2026, we expect Social Security to generate a surplus of $60 million per year. Now, this is predicated on Social Security investing those funds to generate income beyond and above the deposit rate of 2%,” the Prime Minister argued.

Citing the transformation of Caribbean Union Bank and West Indies Oil Company as examples of profitable government-backed enterprises, Browne defended the government’s track record with investments.

He argued that the EC$137 million transfer would ultimately yield EC$400 million over 10 years through a combination of hotel operations and Citizenship by Investment unit sales.

He further stated that Social Security would have a balanced investment portfolio, requesting that Social Security reestablish its investment managers to provide a report to the Cabinet on the best approach.

“We have not quite determined the ratios yet. But we know, for example, that they will have to decide as to how much liquidity they may need for maybe the next five to 10 years and they may decide that they want to maintain 20% of their portfolio in liquid assets, another, 30% could be in non-liquid assets and another 50% in securities to include government securities—that has not been determined,” he said.

The Prime Minister, bullish in his argument, pointed to the profitability of real estate investments in the country, stating that there has not been a real estate market crash in the nation’s history and that real estate is one asset that produces high yields.

He continued to argue that the country “should not wait for people outside of Antigua and Barbuda to try and validate what we’re doing” and we must be “architects of our own development”.

The Prime Minister addressed concerns about risk management by announcing that the government would provide a formal guarantee to Social Security against potential losses.

“We’ll give you a formal guarantee in writing so that, let’s say, worst case scenario, nothing works, nobody buys in the units, and they have to sell it… We will give them a guarantee that any shortfall, the central government will cover it,” he explained.

The Opposition’s Position

The Opposition, led by Leader of the Opposition Jamale Pringle, has long argued that the government was investing in a financially troubled business and that the fund needed an injection of liquid cash and not a debt swap of a “failed asset.”

Outside the halls of Parliament, members of the opposition staged a small-scale protest over the government’s decision.

Inside the parliamentary chamber, there seemed to be two distinctly different arguments that the opposition presented.

The first, posited by MP Pringle, was that the resolution would only be supported by the opposition if the government changed its plan to transfer shares from the profitable West Indies Oil Company and other successful statutory contributions into Social Security, and that the government should present all its plans to the public before it proceeds with its investment.

“If you’re serious about saving Social Security, you mention in your booklet that the West Indies Oil Company, over the years, would have contributed $160 million in dividends.

“So, if it’s doing so well and social security is in trouble now, why are we waiting for Jolly Beach to turn around, invest all that money to turn it around and not use what we have?” Pringle argued.

“We have not even seen an evaluation. Where is the evaluation of Jolly Beach? That was supposed to be sent to us when this document was sent to us. How will that help us now for our debate?” Pringle questioned.

He also argued that any asset transfer to reduce the bond’s principal amount would require a new parliamentary resolution, as the current structure only allows for incremental interest increases, not principal reductions through asset swaps.

The second argument made by St Philips South MP Sherfield Bowen was one of fundamental opposition to the proposal, that the Social Security fund was fundamentally insolvent and lacked the financial capacity for any major investment.

“The paper is more valuable than the concept in it. This document states that this investment is so good that Jolly Beach has 318 operational rooms and 32 non-operational rooms”.

He criticized the proposed hotel room sales plan as unrealistic, sarcastically comparing it to “selling the Brooklyn Bridge” when discussing the $900,000 price tag for two weeks’ annual usage.

MP Bowen argued that the government should simply pay its outstanding debts to Social Security rather than attempting to invest the fund’s limited resources in what he characterized as a “failed asset.”

“It’s just all nonsense. There will be no buyer for a single room; they’ll stay for two weeks and pay the full price of the whole room, which is half a million dollars.

“This proposal calls for, after the investor buys the room, that the room, for the rest of the 50 weeks, goes to Social Security. You couldn’t even sell that to a five-year-old. It is nonsense,” Bowen argued.

Finally, Barbuda MP Trevor Walker stuck to the argument raised by the Leader of the Opposition, that the opposition would support the plan on the condition that comprehensive documentation and financial transparency be ensured and followed before any final decision.

Walker’s concerns centred on procedural transparency rather than any fundamental opposition.

He criticized the absence of Social Security financial statements from 2014 to 2024, missing actuarial reports for the past decade, and the lack of detailed recommendations from the Social Security Board.

“I would love to receive, Mr. Speaker, the response from the Board of Social Security with their recommendations,slash additional information required,” Walker said, noting that if the Board itself had concerns, “it’s important that the public understand what the concerns are”.

At the end of the Parliament session, the resolution was passed by the government as the national debate over the best way to secure Social Security’s future is likely to continue for the weeks and months ahead.