A high-profile public conflict has broken out between prominent Dominican businessman Gregor Nassief and Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit, centered on long-simmering concerns about Dominica’s Citizenship by Investment (CBI) Programme and broader government policy, with the two sides clashing directly over whether the businessman’s complaints have ever received a meaningful response.
Nassief, who first raised alarms about the program privately for years before going public with his claims, argues that he has spent roughly seven years sending 14 separate letters to the prime minister outlining what he frames as serious irregularities in CBI operations. The dispute burst into wider public view after a June 17, 2026, letter from Nassief was leaked and circulated widely across the country. In that correspondence, Nassief alleged that CBI citizenship is being sold at discounted rates below the legal minimum thresholds set by Dominican law. He claims this practice is not only robbing the national treasury of hundreds of millions in expected revenue, but also creates an unfair, unlevel playing field for legitimate developers that have been approved to participate in the CBI programme.
Beyond allegations of improper discounting, Nassief has called for sweeping, independent oversight of the program: he is pushing for a full independent forensic audit of CBI operations, and has suggested that a formal Commission of Inquiry may be required to fully resolve the issues he has raised. He has also tied his concerns to Dominica’s standing on the global stage, pointing to the country’s recent loss of visa-free access to the United Kingdom as a direct consequence of weak CBI governance, and warning of further risks to its travel and immigration relationships with the European Union and United States.
Nassief’s criticism extends far beyond the citizenship investment program, covering a wide range of government policies that affect the Dominican economy and public life. He has raised public questions about the government’s overall economic management, state concessions and financial support for the island’s critical hotel sector, the national minimum wage, and the Alien Landholding Tax. Most recently, he has turned his attention to electoral rules, sending a new round of correspondence to Skerrit demanding reform.
In an open letter published on August 31, Nassief doubled down on his claims that the prime minister has refused to engage meaningfully with his concerns, writing, “Fourteen letters over seven years on CBI. Eight more letters over the past six months raising electoral concerns. And still, the fundamental questions remain unanswered.” He challenged Skerrit to publicly identify which questions he has responded to, putting the onus on the prime minister to prove he has taken the allegations seriously.
However, during a recent press conference held at the Financial Centre conference room, Prime Minister Skerrit pushed back forcefully against Nassief’s narrative that he has ignored the businessman’s complaints. Skerrit confirmed that his administration has engaged with Nassief through multiple channels: written correspondence, private WhatsApp exchanges, and in-person face-to-face meetings, though he acknowledged that the government did not respond to every single letter, nor did it engage in the way Nassief demanded. Most notably, Skerrit revealed that all of the allegations and supporting evidence Nassief submitted regarding CBI irregularities were formally forwarded to Dominica’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) for official investigation.
Skerrit also addressed the other policy concerns Nassief has raised, noting that the government held extensive discussions about hotel sector support and the businessman’s request to roll back the Alien Landholding Tax. The prime minister confirmed that after careful review, the government determined that eliminating or reducing the tax would not be fiscally prudent at this time, and declined to make the change Nassief requested.
At the core of the unresolved standoff is one critical question that neither side has answered publicly: what exactly came of the FIU investigation into Nassief’s CBI allegations, and what conclusions, if any, did investigators reach? Nassief insists that despite years of warnings, no meaningful action has ever been taken to address the flawed practices he has exposed. For his part, Skerrit has pushed back on claims of inaction, arguing that the allegations were not swept under the rug, but instead followed proper protocol by being sent to the appropriate investigative body.
The disagreement has now evolved far beyond a he-said-she-said over whether correspondence was exchanged. It now centers on the substantive question of whether appropriate follow-up action was taken: were the allegations thoroughly investigated, and were any findings or policy recommendations produced as a result? What began as years of private, behind-the-scenes warnings from a prominent local businessman has now become a full-blown national conversation, with broad implications for CBI governance, government transparency and accountability, national revenue security, and the long-term economic sustainability of Dominica’s development model.