A Commission Sworn In the Dark: What the Griffith-Alfonso Link Says About Ali’s “Truth”

/0 Comments/in , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM ♦ GUYANA

EDITORIAL — ACCOUNTABILITY WATCH

A Commission Sworn In the Dark: What the Griffith-Alfonso Link Says About Ali’s “Truth”

By Hem Kumar, Editor
Georgetown — August, 2026

President Irfaan Ali stood before the country on Thursday and made a promise. The Commission of Inquiry into the MV Barima disaster, he said, would deliver “a full, fair and impartial account of what occurred, why it occurred, and what must be done to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated.” He praised his five hand-picked commissioners for their “exceptional professional standing and distinction,” and assured the nation that the panel meets “the highest benchmarks of independence, impartiality and objectivity.”

Seventy-three Guyanese are dead. Thirty more remain missing off the Essequibo Coast. The families deserve every word of that promise to be true. This editorial exists because the record, as it stands on the day the commissioners were sworn in, does not yet support it.

A SWEARING-IN WITHOUT THE PUBLIC

The commission was constituted entirely by presidential selection — no parliamentary consultation, no public nomination process, no engagement with the Leader of the Opposition, whose own constituents are disproportionately represented among the dead and missing. That is not a technical quibble.

It sits uneasily against Article 13 of the Constitution, which commits the State to a political framework of inclusionary democracy — one in which citizens, through their organizations, participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their lives.

An inquiry into the deadliest maritime disaster in the nation’s history is precisely the kind of decision Article 13 contemplates being shared, not reserved to the Executive alone.

The oath-taking itself compounded the problem. Four commissioners were sworn in at State House; the Chairman took his oath virtually, from outside the country. There is no indication in the government’s own account that the ceremony was opened to public observation beyond a curated photo release. A President who spent his address invoking public confidence, transparency and the nation’s right to know chose, for the one concrete act that actually constitutes the commission, to do it behind closed doors.

If the process that creates the truth-tellers cannot itself withstand scrutiny, what standing does it have to demand scrutiny of anyone else?

NO SECRETARY, NO MACHINERY — YET THE CLOCK ON “TRUTH” IS ALREADY RUNNING

There is a further and more practical irony sitting underneath the rhetoric. As of this writing, no Secretary has been named to the Commission of Inquiry.

In inquiries of this kind, the Secretary is not ceremonial — that office typically manages evidence intake, public hearing notices, submission processing and the administrative backbone that allows a commission to actually function as a public-facing body. Without one, the commission the President has already credited with the nation’s truth-telling cannot yet formally receive a single public submission. The 592 Guardian is not aware of any government explanation for the omission, nor of any coverage of it in the state-owned press.

THE PROFESSIONAL LINK THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ADDRESSED

Commissioner Nyree Dawn Alfonso, the Trinidad and Tobago attorney sworn onto the panel on July 30, is the principal of ND Alfonso and Associates, trading in Trinidad as TT Attorneys. Her firm’s own published case record — a still-live litigation summary dated March 2025 — states in the firm’s own words that “the Owners” in a Supreme Court of Guyana matter were represented by Alfonso alongside two colleagues, one of them named as Keoma Griffith. That is not a 592 Guardian inference. It is the firm’s own account of its own case.

Keoma Griffith is now Guyana’s Minister of Labour, serving in President Ali’s administration. According to the 592 Guardian sourcing, Griffith was engaged, in his capacity as an attorney prior to his ministerial appointment, to act for families of victims of the Mahdia fire in negotiations over compensation packages — an arrangement now contested.

Several of those families allege in ongoing litigation that they were coerced into signing packages they were told represented the government’s final offer. The 592 Guardian has not independently verified who engaged Griffith for that representation, and the coercion allegation remains before the courts and unproven. It is reported here as an allegation, not a finding.

What is independently documented is this: Griffith’s professional profile was removed from TT Attorneys’ website in the days immediately preceding Alfonso’s swearing-in. The firm’s dedicated page for Griffith now returns a dead link. The firm’s public team listing, last modified July 25, no longer carries his name. The firm’s contact page, last modified July 26, has dropped the line that once read “C/O Mr. Keoma D. Griffith” under its Guyana office. Alfonso was sworn onto the Barima commission on July 30 — within days of that record being altered.

WHAT IS DOCUMENTED, AND WHAT IS ALLEGED

• DOCUMENTED: TT Attorneys’ own March 2025 case record names Alfonso and Griffith as co-counsel for the same client in Guyana’s Supreme Court.
• DOCUMENTED: Griffith’s individual profile page on the firm’s site is now a dead link (404).
• DOCUMENTED: The firm’s team page (modified July 25) and contact page (modified July 26) were both edited to remove Griffith’s name in the days before the July 30 swearing-in.
• DOCUMENTED: Griffith now serves as Minister of Labour in the Ali administration.
• ALLEGED, NOT PROVEN: That Griffith was engaged by the Attorney General’s Chambers specifically to represent Mahdia fire families.
• ALLEGED, NOT PROVEN, BEFORE THE COURTS: That families were coerced into signing compensation packages they were told were final.
• UNESTABLISHED: Any direct link between Alfonso personally and the Mahdia matter itself. Her documented connection is to Griffith as a professional associate, not to the Mahdia litigation.

 THE QUESTION, NOT THE VERDICT

The 592 Guardian is not asserting that Nyree Alfonso is compromised, nor that her appointment was engineered.

We are asserting something narrower and, we believe, unanswerable by silence: a commissioner selected by the President for her independence was, until roughly seventy-two hours before her swearing-in, a named professional associate of a sitting minister in that same President’s Cabinet — a minister whose own prior legal conduct is currently the subject of litigation by grieving families elsewhere in this country. The public record of that association was edited during the exact window in which the appointment was being finalised.

That sequence of dates is not an accusation. It is a timeline.

And a government that wanted to demonstrate the “highest benchmarks of independence, impartiality and objectivity” it has promised would get ahead of that timeline with disclosure, not leave it for a news-media to reconstruct from cached pages and dead links.

WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR

The 592 Guardian is formally requesting that:

♦ The Office of the President disclose the full vetting record for each Barima commissioner, including any conflict-of-interest declarations obtained prior to appointment.

♦ We are separately requesting that Commissioner Alfonso clarify, on the record, the nature and duration of her professional association with Minister Griffith, and confirm or deny whether that association played any role in the timing of the changes made to her firm’s public-facing website.

♦ We are further requesting that the Office of the President name a Secretary to the Commission without further delay, and explain the reason for the delay to date.

Guyana buried seventy-three of its own over the past week. Thirty families are still waiting for bodies that may never surface.

They were promised the truth, sworn under oath, in a ceremony they were not invited to watch. The least this government owes them now is a process that does not have to be reconstructed from a Google cache.
— The Board

The Barima Test Case: A Nation Weighs Its Dead Against Its Discretion

/0 Comments/in , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN ♦ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM ♦ GUYANA

SMOKE AND FIRE — PART II OF III

The Barima Test Case: A Nation Weighs Its Dead Against Its Discretion

By Hem Kumar, Editor

Georgetown — August, 2026

This is the second of a three-part series examining Guyana’s oil-era governance through the lens of Bloomberg Opinion’s July 29, 2026 feature “Oil’s Resource Curse Hangs Heavy Over Guyana” by Juan Pablo Spinetto, read against The 592 Guardian’s own investigative record. Attributed excerpts below are drawn from Spinetto’s published column; all further findings are the Guardian’s own unless otherwise sourced. Some allegations described below remain sourced but not independently verified by this newsroom, and are labeled as such.

Juan Pablo Spinetto gave the MV Barima disaster four sentences. He had a week in Georgetown and a great deal of Guyana to cover — Exxon, the port at Berbice, the census, the ranch. Even so, what he chose to notice in those four sentences is instructive: the age of the vessel, the scale of the loss, the poor emergency response, and — the detail he singled out for its own clause — that  civil activists were briefly arrested for staging a peaceful demonstration during a vigil for the victims.

In a revealing display of the authorities’ low tolerance for dissent, three civil activists were briefly arrested for staging a peaceful demonstration during a vigil in solidarity with the victims.— JP Spinetto, Bloomberg Opinion, July 29, 2026

That sentence is the one a visiting columnist can write from a week of interviews and a news wire. It correctly identifies a reflex. What this news-media has spent the past two weeks establishing is that the reflex did not stop at a vigil. It runs through the funeral arrangements, the salvage decision, the parliamentary sitting, and now the Commission of Inquiry meant to investigate all of it.

WHAT BLOOMBERG SAW FROM THE OUTSIDE

Spinetto’s column places Barima inside a broader argument about “weak state capacity” and institutions under strain — accurate, and consistent with what this publication has documented in far greater granularity since the ferry went down on July 18.

He was not in the halls of the Arthur Chung Conference Centre on July 27, when the Joint Opposition marched into the National Assembly chamber in black, wearing placards bearing photographs of the dead, to demand the resignations of Public Works Minister Juan Edghill and Minister within Public Works Deodat Indar.

He did not witness the confrontation between Hadiyyah Mohamed, sister of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, and Prime Minister Mark Phillips, in which this publication has verified that Phillips personally told her to “get from here” before his own security made physical contact with her — contact Phillips himself then called off. Parliament proceeded, that same sitting, to pass a $54.9 billion appropriations bill. a $40 billion funding bill for the State Development Bank, and observe one minute of silence for an estimated 100 dead.

THE MEMORIAL QUESTION NOBODY ASKED FOR

Before any of that, this newsroom obtained a document being circulated to victims’ relatives: a pre-drafted “Declaration of Agreement — MV Barima as Memorial Site,” complete with a signature table for name of deceased, relative, relationship, address, phone, and signature.

It was in circulation before the government’s own stated family-consultation process had meaningfully begun. The 592 Guardian’s editorial on this point asked a direct question, and repeats it here: what is government afraid a floated MV Barima will show?

That question sharpened further after this new-media reviewed a still-unconfirmed account — sourced from a relative interviewed amid the July 29 Amerindian Peoples Association picket outside the Office of the President — alleging that the President personally told a grieving family they would be paid $200,000 for burial, and separately told them not to record photos or video on threat of police arrest.

This publication has not yet independently confirmed either claim and is awaiting a cleaner transcript before treating them as established. They are reported here as exactly what they are: a serious, sourced allegation still under review — not yet a 592 Guardian finding.

THE COMMISSION SWORN IN THE DARK

On July 30, President Ali unilaterally swore in a five-member Commission of Inquiry at State House: Chairman Justice Godfrey Phillip Smith of Belize, sworn in virtually; Captain Hamada Fouda of Jamaica; Nyree Dawn Alfonso, a Trinidad and Tobago attorney; Dr. Andrzej Jasionowski of Poland; and Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Hayden Pritchard of Trinidad and Tobago. No Commission Secretary has yet been named. The swearing-in proceeded without press access.

This newsmedia’s review of ND Alfonso and Associates’ own published case record finds that the firm’s March 2025 entry states Alfonso represented “the Owners” in a Supreme Court of Guyana matter — alongside Asif Hosein-Shah and Keoma Griffith, who is now Guyana’s Minister of Labour in the Ali administration.

Griffith’s individual attorney bio page on the firm’s website now returns a 404 error; a cached version confirms he was listed there as admitted to practice in both Guyana and Trinidad since 2016. The firm’s team page was modified on July 25, and its contact page on July 26 — in the days immediately preceding Alfonso’s July 30 swearing-in as a Barima Commissioner.

A commission sworn in the dark cannot be trusted to bring what happened on the Barima into the light.— The 592 Guardian, editorial, July 30, 2026

A second, more serious thread runs alongside this one, and this publication is explicit that it remains an allegation, not an established fact: sourcing describes Griffith as having been engaged by the Attorney General’s Chambers to represent Mahdia fire victims’ families in compensation negotiations, where families now allege in ongoing litigation that they were coerced into accepting a package Griffith presented as government’s best and final offer.

This news-media’s published piece treated Griffith’s subsequent ministerial appointment as a timeline juxtaposition worth placing on the record — not as a proven causal claim of reward for outcome. Alfonso herself has no documented connection to the Mahdia matter; her only established link is as a professional associate of Griffith’s at the same Trinidad firm, a link the firm’s own website was edited to obscure in the run-up to her Barima appointment.

TWO WAYS OF SEEING THE SAME COUNTRY

Put Bloomberg’s four sentences next to the Guardian’s two weeks of reporting and the difference is not one of disagreement. It is one of altitude. Spinetto, writing at the level of a nation’s institutional trajectory, correctly clocked that Guyana’s authorities show “low tolerance for dissent.”

This news-media, writing from inside the specific case, can show what that intolerance costs in practice: a memorial consent form drafted before consultation, a burial-cost allegation still pending confirmation, a Prime Minister’s security making contact with a grieving woman in a public building, and a Commission of Inquiry sworn in without press access, containing a commissioner whose firm scrubbed a colleague’s public profile in the same week the President appointed that colleague’s law partner to investigate the deaths of a hundred people.

This publication has formally requested that the Office of the President disclose its commissioner vetting records, that Alfonso clarify the Griffith association on the record, and that a Commission Secretary be named without further delay. As of this writing, none of the three requests has been answered.

WHAT COMES NEXT

Bloomberg’s column ends its treatment of Guyana’s institutions with a diagnostic instrument — the Natural Resource Charter’s twelve benchmarks, several of them, in Spinetto’s own account, only partially met.

Part III of this series turns to that same diagnostic question through the instrument built to answer it domestically: Guyana’s electoral machinery, the unresolved dispute over Article 161(3)(b) and the composition of GECOM, and what the Carter Center’s own findings — cited approvingly in Spinetto’s piece — leave out.

This is Part II of a three-part series. Part I: “The Elite Capture Story” has run. Part III: “Democracy on Paper” will follow.

— The Board

Two Ceremonies, One River

/0 Comments/in , /by
ATHE 592 GUARDIAN ♦ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM ♦ GUYANA

 Two Ceremonies, One River

On praise, pillars, and a country still counting its dead

EDITORIAL— August, 2026

Two weeks ago, thirty-eight Guyanese families were still waiting for a body to bury. Two weeks ago, a ferry built in 1939 — a vessel older than Guyanese independence itself — lay capsized off the Essequibo Coast with an unknown number of the missing still inside it.

This week, the President of the Republic marked Emancipation Day by invoking the Village Movement, by speaking of ancestors who “fixed their gaze steadily upon the future,” and by declaring that the pillars our forebears built are the pillars upon which modern Guyana now stands.

The same week, the state-owned Guyana Chronicle ran the International Monetary Fund’s Article IV assessment as vindication: prudent fiscal policy, the lowest debt-distress risk in the hemisphere, a Natural Resource Fund swelling with oil wealth. Other government-aligned outlets went further, framing the consultation as confirmation that Guyana is, full stop, the fastest-growing economy on Earth.

Both stories are true. That is precisely the problem.

WHAT THE FUND ACTUALLY SAID

The IMF’s concluding statement is not a fabrication, and this publication has no interest in pretending otherwise.

Guyana’s fiscal deficit is expected to widen in 2026 on account of social transfers and electricity subsidies, with an improvement projected for 2027 as the Natural Resource Fund’s built-in withdrawal lag moderates spending. The Fund did credit the country with a rapid accumulation of NRF balances and one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios in the hemisphere. It did note progress on digital procurement, cost-oil audit resolution through arbitration, and a comprehensive approach to anti-money-laundering compliance tied to the 2024 Caribbean Financial Action Task Force evaluation.

None of that is in dispute. What is in dispute — what this Board insists on stating plainly — is the use to which that assessment has been put by state and state-aligned media.

An Article IV consultation is a technical exercise in macro-fiscal surveillance. It is not, and was never intended to be, a verdict on whether oil wealth is reaching the people the Constitution says it belongs to.

Reporting it as the latter is not journalism. It is laundering a narrow finding into a broad absolution.

THE FASTEST-GROWING ECONOMY, MEASURED FROM WHERE

Bloomberg Opinion columnist Juan Pablo Spinetto spent time on the ground in Georgetown around Guyana’s independence anniversary — including, by his own account, standing before the Golden Arrowhead at midnight at a ceremony he later described in blunt terms as an embarrassment rather than a triumph.

His subsequent column measured Guyana against the Natural Resource Charter, a set of governance benchmarks developed in 2010 for exactly this situation: a small state suddenly rich, and at risk of squandering it the way so many petro-states have before.                                              Guyana meets four of those benchmarks outright, including accountable public decision-making and revenue smoothing. It only partially meets others — public spending efficiency, economic diversification, an inclusive national strategy.

Spinetto’s most damning finding was not a number. It was an absence of one.

He wrote plainly that positive economic indicators abound — vehicle sales, a booming mortgage market — while poverty data remains unreliable and difficult to access. That is not a rhetorical flourish. It is a structural description of how a government chooses what to measure and what to leave dark.

This Board has tried to fill that dark space honestly, because the alternative — letting a single contested figure become a talking point in either direction — serves no one. The World Bank’s most recent published estimate puts Guyana’s poverty rate at 48.4 percent, but that number rests on a 2019 baseline; seven years and a full oil boom later, no comprehensive updated household survey has been published.

The Inter-American Development Bank’s cross-country documentation cites a considerably higher 58 percent, split between 32 percent in extreme poverty and 26 percent in moderate poverty — a figure that has itself become a subject of domestic argument precisely because no current government household survey exists to settle it.

We do not resolve that dispute here. We note it, because the eleven-point gap between two credible multilateral estimates is not a footnote. It is the story. A government cannot claim to be managing oil wealth transparently while the most basic measure of who that wealth has and has not reached is seven years stale.

 THE VESSEL BENEATH THE NUMBERS

It is against that backdrop that this news-media  places the Emancipation Day address beside the ferry. The President spoke of ancestors who built villages as “crucibles of culture” and “seedbeds of nationhood,” who farmed and mined and built enterprises so that later generations might “stand taller, reach further, and dream broader.”

These are not empty words, and this Board will not pretend the history behind them is anything other than real. The Village Movement was a genuine act of collective self-determination by a formerly enslaved people with almost nothing, and it deserves the honor the President gave it.

But the MV Barima sailed under the same government being praised this week for prudent fiscal stewardship. It sailed in 2026 as a 1939-built vessel, older than the nation’s independence, carrying by the government’s own revised count some 179 people against a manifest that listed 133 — a discrepancy that has never been adequately explained. Seventy-seven people are confirmed dead. More than two dozen remain unaccounted for, weeks later. Families in Charity waited by the shore for news of children who were never found.

A Commission of Inquiry now sits, appointed unilaterally, with its own unresolved questions about commissioner conflicts that this Board has documented at length in prior editions. A government audit team convened to review maritime safety was staffed by officials with years-long institutional ties to the very regulator whose failures the disaster exposed.

This is not a story about incompetence in isolation. It is a story about sequencing and priority inside a state managing, by its own telling, one of the best-run oil windfalls in the hemisphere.

A nation capable of the digital procurement platforms and detailed medium-term fiscal projections the IMF praised is a nation capable of maintaining a passenger ferry manifest. The failure was not a lack of capacity.

It was a lack of will to apply that capacity where poor and rural Guyanese — disproportionately Indigenous, disproportionately far from Georgetown — actually live and travel.

THE QUESTION WORTH ASKING

Do the people who write these state-aligned pieces — the ones hailing the IMF report as proof of a nation transformed, in the same week the country buried ferry victims and marked Emancipation Day with talk of pillars — actually believe what they are writing?

This Board does not know, and will not pretend to divine motive where evidence is unavailable. What we can state is this: a free press exists precisely to hold the space between an IMF technical statement and a lived reality of stale poverty data and a sunken 87-year-old ferry.  

When state media collapses that space — when it reports the former as though it resolves the latter — it is not covering the country. It is covering for it.

Guyana’s ancestors, the President said correctly, did not greet freedom with bitterness. They built. This Board asks only that the government being praised this week for its stewardship of a $40-billion sovereign fund show the same resolve their ancestors showed with far less: an honest accounting, published and current, of who in this country is still waiting for the pillars to reach them.

— The Board

By Hem Kumar, Editor

Phillips’s Non-Answers Are the Story

/0 Comments/in , , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM GUYANA

 ANALYSIS ♦ MV BARIMA COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

Phillips’s Non-Answers Are the Story

The 592 Guardian  Board   |   Georgetown, Guyana   |   August 2026

Prime Minister Mark Phillips stood before the press on Tuesday and, in the space of one news conference, managed to confirm nearly every fear survivors and the public have had about how this government intends to handle the MV Barima wreck.

He did not need to admit a cover-up. He performed one.

A CONSULTATION BUILT BACKWARD

Start with the sequence, because sequence is where evasions hide. Before families were formally polled on salvage versus memorial, a “Declaration of Agreement” document was already circulating — pre-drafted, asking relatives to consent to the vessel remaining on the seabed. That document did not materialize in a vacuum. It followed Mr. Phillips’s own proclamation in the House that conditions were “not favourable” for salvage. The government reached its preferred outcome first and built the consultation process to arrive there. Calling that “yielding to the wishes of families” inverts the actual order of events.

The government reached its preferred outcome first and built the consultation process to arrive there.

TESTIMONY IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR EVIDENCE

Then there is the engine question, which Mr. Phillips was asked directly and answered by not answering.

Pressed on whether avoiding salvage conveniently avoids incontrovertible physical evidence of engine failure, he pivoted to survivor testimony — arguing witnesses “could say” whether the engine stopped and repairs were needed, so “either way, it can be done.”

That is not a rebuttal. It is a substitution. Eyewitness recollection of a mechanical event and a forensic engine inspection are not interchangeable forms of evidence, and Mr. Phillips — a former army officer who understands the difference between testimony and material evidence — knows this.

A Commission of Inquiry that settles for the former when the latter is retrievable is a COI built to reach a predetermined, defensible-on-paper conclusion.

THE ADMISSION INSIDE THE DEFLECTION

The “several discrepancies” admission is the tell inside the deflection. Mr. Phillips conceded that identifying one discrepancy — apparently the loading figures — means others likely exist.

That is precisely the kind of admission that makes physical inspection of the vessel indispensable, not optional.

You do not tell the public there may be undiscovered discrepancies and then structure the recovery decision around whether grieving families feel emotionally prepared to relive the loss.

Those are two different questions being deliberately fused into one.

A DENIAL NO ONE HAD FINISHED ASKING FOR

And then the flat denial — “Government has nothing to hide” — offered without being asked, before the accusation of cover-up was formally news to circle back to.

When a Prime Minister volunteers a denial to a charge that has not yet fully calcified in the public record, it usually means he has already seen the writing on the wall.

THE OFFER THAT WENT UNANSWERED

Mr. Mohamed’s funded international salvage offer, still unanswered by government as of this week, sits there as the counter-proof: the “we have engaged with several companies” line evaporates the moment an alternative recovery path — fully resourced, requiring no state funds — is placed on the table and simply ignored.

If the barrier to salvage were genuinely logistical or financial, that offer resolves it. It has not been touched.

None of this requires speculation about motive. The public record — his own words, the timeline of the memorial declaration, the unaddressed Mohamed offer — does the indicting on its own.

— The Board       

UNITY IS NOT A GAG ORDER

/0 Comments/in , , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN ◊ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM ◊GUYANA

 UNITY IS NOT A GAG ORDER

A response to “Crossfire,” Guyana Chronicle

The Guyana Chronicle’s Crossfire column this week asks the nation to fall silent. It invokes the dead of the MV Barima — seventy-three recovered, others still missing — and from that grief draws a political instruction: that questions are indecent, that opposition scrutiny is “campaign speeches,” that Amanza Walton-Desir and Janelle Sweatnam should “hang their heads in shame” for asking what a publicly funded newspaper will not.

We take grief seriously. We do not take it as license.

WHAT THE COLUMN ASKS THE COUNTRY TO FORGET

Crossfire’s argument depends on a single move: treat every specific, named demand from the opposition as indistinguishable from opportunism, while asking the government’s critics — and only the government’s critics — for restraint. Consider what was actually said, on the record, by the two women singled out for shame.

Walton-Desir’s position, made at a joint opposition press conference, was not a slogan. It was a specific legal argument: that because the MV Barima was a state-owned and state-operated vessel, any investigation into its maintenance, certification, inspection and regulatory oversight will necessarily examine the conduct of government agencies — and that under the International Maritime Organization’s casualty investigation framework, an inquiry touching the state’s own conduct must be structured for independence to command public confidence. She asked the government to say plainly which legal instrument it is proceeding under — the Commissions of Inquiry Act, the Shipping Act, or an IMO marine safety investigation — and who is leading it. These are not campaign lines. They are the questions any credible accountability process answers as a matter of course.

Sweatnam’s demand was equally specific: whether the vessel was properly maintained and seaworthy, whether mandatory inspections occurred, whether maritime regulations were followed, and whether Minister Juan Edghill and MARAD Director Stephen Thomas should be held to account for a portfolio in which those questions arose.

Asking whether a minister bears responsibility for the regulatory failures under his portfolio is not a breach of national mourning. It is the ordinary function of an opposition in a parliamentary democracy — one Crossfire’s own column claims to defend a few paragraphs later, when it says the opposition has “every constitutional right and indeed a democratic responsibility to ask difficult questions.”

The column cannot have it both ways. It cannot affirm the opposition’s right to scrutiny in the abstract while naming and shaming the specific women who exercised it.

THE FACTS CROSSFIRE DECLINES TO SIT WITH

An editorial invoking unity should be able to withstand the plain record. The MV Barima’s official manifest listed 133 people aboard. Confirmed reporting puts the actual number closer to 179 — a discrepancy of roughly 46 people that has direct bearing on how search-and-rescue was scoped in its earliest hours. The vessel’s captain and first engineer tested positive for cannabis. The vessel itself was built in 1939, eighty-five years in service, with a replacement ferry reportedly sitting unused for want of a completed pier. Every one of these facts belongs to the government’s own disclosures, made through the Prime Minister’s office and the Ministry of Public Works.

None of them were surfaced by the opposition. All of them are the proper subject of exactly the kind of independent scrutiny Walton-Desir called for.

An editorial that spends its full length on the propriety of the opposition’s tone, and none of it on a state-owned vessel’s inaccurate manifest or its crew’s drug tests, has not written about restraint. It has written about deflection.

WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY ACTUALLY REQUIRES

We do not dispute Crossfire’s better instincts. It is right that the dead are not props for scorekeeping, right that families in mourning are not an audience for anyone’s speech, right that premature verdicts should give way to a credible process. We hold the same standard for government spokespeople who, within days of the tragedy, offered blanket denials of neglect before reversing course once the drug tests came back — Minister Edghill himself moved, in the space of a single Sunday, from insisting there was no sign of neglect to confirming a crew member’s positive test. That, too, is a “blanket denial wrapped in uncertainty.” Crossfire finds no shame to assign there.

Accountability that flows in only one direction is not accountability. It is public relations wearing the language of grief, financed with public funds, aimed at a newspaper’s own government.

A state broadcaster or a state-funded newspaper does not lose the right to publish opinion. But it forfeits the right to be read as a neutral referee of who may grieve and who must stay silent, when the institution itself has a direct stake in how blame is finally assigned.

Seventy-three Guyanese families are still waiting — some for bodies, some for the truth. They are not served by a column that tells the opposition to bow its head. They are served by an investigation structured, as Walton-Desir insisted, to survive scrutiny of the state itself; by a minister who answers plainly instead of reversing himself under pressure; and by a press, publicly funded or otherwise, that asks the same hard questions of power in July that it asks in any other month.

That is not crossfire. That is the job.

— The Board

A Line Kissoon Invented, Then Accused Others of Crossing

/0 Comments/in , , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN ◊ACCOUNTABILITY ◊GOVERNANCE ◊ THE PUBLIC RECORD

EDITORIAL RESPONSE

A Line Kissoon Invented, Then Accused Others of Crossing

Freddie Kissoon’s July 30 column builds its entire moral case on a rule that does not exist. What follows is worse than a factual lapse.

By The Board  ·  July, 2026

Freddie Kissoon’s July 30 column opens with a premise stated as settled fact: that children do not belong in Guyana’s Parliament, that their presence on July 27 was “unheard of in the world,” and that Azruddin Mohamed therefore crossed a line that is, in Kissoon’s word, “unforgivable.”

The premise is false, and not in a way that requires specialist knowledge to correct.

School civics tours through the National Assembly are a routine feature of parliamentary systems, including Guyana’s own — a fact available to anyone who attended secondary school within walking distance of the Public Buildings.

Stakeholder and special-interest hearings that bring affected families before a legislature to address the matter that concerns them are likewise unremarkable practice, not a Guyanese or global anomaly.

Kissoon’s rhetorical question — “in which country has that happened?” — has an answer, and it is: most of them, regularly.

This matters because the column’s entire architecture depends on the premise holding. Strip out “children are categorically barred from Parliament” and what remains is not a violated rule but a policy dispute over optics — whether it was wise or exploitative for the Opposition Leader to bring grieving family members, including children, into the House in connection with a disaster that killed their parents and siblings.

That is a legitimate question. It is not the question Kissoon asked. He asked it as though the answer were already written into the Standing Orders, and built a column’s worth of moral certainty on top of an assertion he never verified.

TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, COLLAPSED INTO ONE

The column treats “children in the public gallery” as interchangeable with “victims’ family members, including children, present in connection with a matter that killed their relatives.”

These are not the same category. A school tour and a stakeholder appearance by bereaved families are both examples of children in a legislature; neither is “the public wandering in to watch a sitting for entertainment,” which is the image Kissoon’s column works to conjure.

Collapsing the distinction is either careless or convenient. Given the rest of the column, convenient seems the likelier reading.

THE UNASKED QUESTION

Kissoon asks “for what purpose?” four times in various forms, treating it as rhetorical — a question with no honest answer, only a cynical one. He does not engage with the stated purpose: that these were relatives of MV Barima victims, present to make their concerns known to a government whose response to the disaster — from the handling of funeral arrangements to the timeline on salvage to the circulation of a memorial-site “Declaration of Agreement” ahead of any genuine consultation — has itself drawn sustained and specific scrutiny.

A columnist confident in his own premise does not need to ignore the competing one.

Kissoon ignores it entirely, then fills the vacuum with motive he has not demonstrated: ego, bandwagon politics, “crass mentality.”

THE PRESUMPTION OF BAD FAITH, APPLIED SELECTIVELY

The column’s roll call — Kaieteur News, Kiskadee Watch, Demerara Waves, the Guyana Human Rights Association, Transparency International Guyana, Red Thread — is presented as a list of organizations that will stay silent because they “need” Mohamed.

This is asserted, not shown. It is also asserted before any of those organizations had published anything on the matter, which means the column is not describing a silence that occurred but predicting one, and then treating the prediction as evidence of the bad faith it has not yet observed.

That is not analysis. It is a script written in advance of the facts it claims to interpret.

WHAT THE COLUMN NEVER ASKS

A column genuinely concerned with the welfare of grieving children might have asked whether the government’s own conduct in the days after July 18 — the disputed account of remarks about burial costs, the reported instruction not to photograph or film, the pre-drafted memorial declaration circulated to families ahead of a stated “consultation” process — contributed to families feeling they had no avenue but a public one. Kissoon’s column asks none of this.

It reserves its outrage entirely for the opposition’s optics and none for the government conduct that gave families cause to seek an audience in the first place.

None of this requires taking a position on whether bringing children to Parliament was, on balance, wise. Reasonable people can disagree on that. What they cannot do honestly is invent a rule that does not exist, use it to declare a line “unforgivably crossed,” and then spend a column’s remaining length assigning motive to everyone who might question the premise.

WHOSE POSITION, EXACTLY

One further point deserves the record. The column runs in the Guyana Chronicle, a state-owned newspaper, under a standard disclaimer identifying Kissoon as a paid columnist whose views are his own and not the outlet’s official position.

That disclaimer exists precisely because Chronicle is state property, and it is boilerplate practice for compensated contributors at any paper. It does not by itself prove alignment with government messaging.

But it is a fact worth placing beside the column’s own accusation — that the opposition and civil society are motivated by what they “need,” never principle — because that accusation arrives from a paid platform of the state, aimed at people writing for free.

Readers can weigh that asymmetry for themselves.

— The Board

A $40 BILLION BLANK CHEQUE

/0 Comments/in , , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN♦ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM ♦GUYANA

A $40 BILLION BLANK CHEQUE

How the Guyana Development Bank Bill Was Passed Without Debate

Parliament used the Barima crisis as cover to wave through a bill built to concentrate control

OPINION♦July, 2026

On July 27, while the Joint Opposition was inside the National Assembly demanding the resignations of Minister of Public Works Juan Edghill and Minister within Public Works Deodat Indar over the MV Barima disaster, the government moved the Guyana Development Bank Bill to a second reading and passed it — 52 days after it was tabled, and without a single substantive contribution from the Opposition benches.

The same sitting passed a $54.9 billion bill and observed one minute of silence for the 73 confirmed dead. The Development Bank Bill received considerably less scrutiny than the moment of silence.

This is not incidental. A chamber consumed by grief and protest is a chamber that cannot read a bill clause by clause.

The government’s own contributions to the “debate” — from Minister of Culture Youth and Sport Charles Ramson, Minister Zulfikar Ally, and MPs Lenox Shuman and Alister Charlies — proceeded while Opposition MPs stood near ministers mid-presentation and the Speaker suspended the sitting twice to restore order. Whatever this was, it was not deliberation.

THE SALES PITCH VERSUS THE STATUTE

The Guyana Development Bank was publicly marketed as a facility offering interest-free loans of up to $3 million to Guyanese entrepreneurs, with no collateral required. The legislation says something narrower. Section 5(2) permits the Bank to provide loans “with or without collateral and with or without charging interest” — discretionary language that leaves the government free to impose collateral and interest on some or most applicants, with no criteria in the Bill specifying which projects qualify for the interest-free, collateral-free terms that were used to sell this to the public.

The eligibility gap runs deeper. Part V does not restrict financing to Guyanese nationals. Section 23 requires only that an applicant “provide such information, documents and statutory declarations as may be prescribed” — language vague enough that a foreign-owned enterprise could plausibly qualify under the same terms as a Guyanese small business the fund was announced to serve.

ONE MINISTER, TOTAL DISCRETION

The structural core of this Bill is Section 5 and the governance provisions that follow it.

Up to $40 billion — roughly US$200 million, a figure that can be revised upward by Parliament — will be administered by a board of five to nine directors appointed entirely by the Minister of Finance. The Minister appoints the chairperson, the deputy chairperson, sets director remuneration, and the board in turn appoints the CEO. Directors serve three-year terms and may be reappointed at the Minister’s discretion.

“No seat is reserved for the Opposition. No seat is reserved for civil society. No seat is reserved for a transparency body. This is not an oversight — it is the single most consequential design choice in the Bill.”

A development bank distributing this scale of public capital without a single independently-nominated director is a bank answerable to one office and one office alone.

PENALTIES THAT MISS THE ACTUAL RISK

The Bill enumerates five offences:

⇒providing false information to the Bank

⇒obstructing the Bank’s functions

⇒falsifying records

⇒improperly disclosing confidential information 

⇒willfully misapplying Bank funds or assets.

Every one of these is oriented toward the borrower — the person seeking or holding a loan.

Nowhere does the Bill create a specific offence for unauthorised withdrawal or self-dealing by the officials entrusted with managing the $40 billion pool itself.

The “connivance” clause — imposing fines of $5 million to $10 million on a director, manager, or officer who consents to or connives in one of the five listed offences — is derivative. It requires an underlying offence to attach to. It does not independently criminalise a Finance Minister appointee steering approvals toward political allies, because favouritism in loan approval is not on the list of offences at all.

Combine this with the appointment structure above: a board selected without external check, operating under a penalty regime that does not contemplate insider misconduct as its own offence. The Auditor General will audit annually, and the Annual Report will be tabled in the National Assembly — but after-the-fact reporting is not a substitute for structural safeguards at the point of decision.

THE PATTERN

This joins a growing list of instruments — the GECOM Article 161(3)(b) dispute, the Former Presidents Benefits Bill — that share a common architecture: broad ministerial or executive discretion, minimal independent check, and passage timed to avoid the scrutiny the moment would otherwise attract. On July 27, that moment was Barima. The country was watching a grieving Opposition Leader’s sister confronted in the halls of Parliament and a Prime Minister proclaiming salvage conditions “not favourable” for recovering a vessel with the dead still aboard.

Forty billion dollars changed hands, procedurally, in the same sitting.

The Guyana Development Bank may yet do real good for small business owners who cannot access commercial credit.

That possibility does not answer the structural question this Bill leaves open: who decides who gets the money, on what terms, and who answers for it if the decision is made badly. As written, the answer to all three is the same person.

— The Board

The Minister in the Commissioner’s Firm

/0 Comments/in , , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN ♦ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM ♦ GUYANA

EDITORIAL  ·  COMMISSION OF INQUIRY  ·  MV BARIMA

The Minister in the Commissioner’s Firm

How a sitting Cabinet minister’s own law chambers became the Guyana address of a COI commissioner’s firm — and how that record was quietly edited in the days around the swearing-in

By Hem Kumar, Editor  ·  The 592 Guardian  ·  July, 2026

Thursday’s swearing-in of the five-member Commission of Inquiry into the sinking of the MV Barima was held behind closed doors. The media were barred. President Irfaan Ali stood before the commissioners he alone had appointed and declared that the panel “meets the highest benchmarks of independence, impartiality, and objectivity.”

No journalist was present to ask him what, precisely, he meant.

The 592 Guardian can now report that in the days immediately surrounding that ceremony, a Trinidad-based law firm quietly stripped a sitting Guyanese Cabinet minister’s name from three separate pages of its public website — pages that had tied him, directly, to the professional home of one of the President’s own appointees.

THE FIRM AND THE COMMISSIONER

Among the five commissioners named by President Ali is Nyree Dawn Alfonso of Trinidad and Tobago, an attorney with expertise in admiralty and maritime law. Ms. Alfonso is the Managing Partner of N.D. Alfonso & Co., a Port-of-Spain firm operating in Guyana as well as Trinidad.

Junior Minister of Labour Keoma Griffith is a Guyanese attorney admitted to practice in both jurisdictions since 2016.

This news- media  has independently confirmed, through the firm’s own published record, that Mr. Griffith has appeared as counsel for N.D. Alfonso & Co. clients in Guyana’s Supreme Court. In a March 2025 case update still live on the firm’s website, N.D. Alfonso & Co. states that the owners of a tug and barge released from judicial arrest in Guyana “were represented by Nyree Alfonso, Asif Hosein-Shah and Keoma Griffith,” naming the future Junior Minister in the same breath as the firm’s Managing Partner — the same Managing Partner President Ali has now placed on the Commission of Inquiry into the worst peacetime maritime disaster in Guyana’s history.

A sitting Cabinet minister does not casually share a byline with a COI commissioner in a Supreme Court filing. The question is not whether the connection exists. It is why the government did not disclose it.

WHAT WE FOUND, AND WHAT WAS REMOVED

The 592 Guardian independently examined N.D. Alfonso & Co.’s website, ttattorneys.com, on July 30 — the day of the swearing-in — and traced a pattern of edits made in the days before it.

The firm’s dedicated professional biography page for Mr. Griffith, previously indexed at ttattorneys.com/keoma-d-griffith, returns a “page not found” error as of this writing. Google’s cached index of that page, reviewed by this news- media shows it described him as admitted to practice law in Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago in 2016, with appearances before the Caribbean Court of Justice, the Guyana Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Magistrates’ Court.

The firm’s “Our Team” page, still live, was last modified on July 25, 2026 — one day before Mr. Griffith’s appointment record was scrubbed and five days before the commissioners were sworn in. That page today lists only Ms. Alfonso, one partner, and three consultants. It no longer mentions Mr. Griffith. Google’s cached version of the same page, reviewed by this news outlet , previously listed him as “Correspondent (Guyana), Consultants.”

The firm’s “Contact Us” page, also still live, was last modified on July 26, 2026. It currently lists only a “Guyana Satellite Office” at 225 South Street, Lacytown, Georgetown — with no name attached. An earlier indexed version of that identical page, reviewed by this newspaper, listed the Guyana office as “C/O Mr. Keoma D. Griffith, 225 South Street, Lacytown, Georgetown, Guyana.”

Three pages. Three edits. All in the narrow window between the government naming its commissioners and the public swearing-in it chose to conduct without the press present.

THE QUESTIONS GUYANA DESERVES ANSWERED

This publication  draws no conclusion here that has not already been drawn by the firm’s own website, in its own words, at a time of its own choosing. What the record shows is this:

⇒ A Cabinet minister’s chambers address served as the Guyana contact point for a COI commissioner’s firm.

⇒A Cabinet minister appeared as named counsel alongside that commissioner in Guyana’s courts.

⇒ And in the days around his own government’s swearing-in of that commissioner, the public-facing record of that relationship was edited down to nothing.

President Ali, Minister Griffith, and Commissioner Alfonso each owe the country a direct answer to a direct question: did the President know of this relationship when he named Ms. Alfonso to a Commission investigating a tragedy that killed more than a hundred Guyanese, and if he did not know, why not?

The opposition parties warned, before a single commissioner was named, that public confidence in this inquiry would depend not only on the credentials of its members but on a transparent process free of “actual or perceived conflict of interest.”

TIGI has separately raised concern over the integrity of several commissioners.  APNU’s

Ganesh Mahipaul has objected specifically to the Chairman’s political background.

Chartered accountant Christopher Ram has pressed, unanswered, on why the Commission’s terms of reference stop at the night of July 18 rather than the decade of decisions that put an 87-year-old vessel on that river.

Each of those warnings was dismissed, in effect, by a government that proceeded to swear in its commissioners behind closed doors. Now a fourth thread joins them — one written not by an opposition politician or a critic, but by the commissioner’s own law firm, in its own case files, before anyone thought to ask.

UNCOVERING WHAT THEY COVER

Seventy-two Guyanese families have buried their dead. Thirty more wait for bodies that may never surface.

The government has promised them a Commission that meets “the highest benchmarks of independence, impartiality, and objectivity.”

It has not yet explained why the public record supporting that claim needed editing in the week the claim was made.

The 592 Guardian has sought comment from Minister Griffith, Commissioner Alfonso, and the Office of the President. This is a developing story. We will publish any response in full.

— The Board

Thirty-One Toshaos, Nine Hundred Thirty Million Dollars, and No Bids: The Threshold That Vanished in a Week

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 

THE 592 GUARDIAN◊ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM FOR GUYANA 

Thirty-One Toshaos, Nine Hundred Thirty Million Dollars, and No Bids: The Threshold That Vanished in a Week

Gtown, Guyana — July, 2026

On Saturday, thirty-one village leaders from Regions Eight and Nine stood in the boardroom of the Ministry of Public Works and signed their names to Community Participation Contracts worth roughly $30 million apiece — a combined $930 million in public money, delivered without a single open bid.

Permanent Secretary Vladim Persaud called it capacity-building. It is also, on the public record, the single largest expansion of uncompeted procurement discretion this administration has exercised in the hinterland in recent memory, and it happened in under a week.

The mechanism is not new. Community Participation Contracts have existed for years as a deliberate, defensible exception to open tendering — a way to let villages execute their own road and bridge maintenance with local labour rather than importing an outside contractor. Nobody at this newspaper disputes that the underlying idea has merit.

What changed, abruptly and by ministerial announcement rather than by any visible legislative or regulatory process this newspaper can locate, is the ceiling on what that exception now covers.

A THRESHOLD RAISED AT A PODIUM

At the National Toshaos Council Conference, Vice President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo told delegates the government would raise the CPC threshold from $5 million to $30 million — a sixfold increase — and instructed, in terms that left no room for bureaucratic delay, that it be done “before you leave.” It was. Within days, thirty-one contracts at or near the new ceiling were signed in a Georgetown boardroom.

A threshold that took years to sit at $5 million was multiplied sixfold at a podium and operationalized into $930 million of signed contracts before the conference delegates had returned home.

This news-media has covered enough hinterland procurement to recognize the shape of what is being described here. The prior $5 million ceiling was not an oversight; it was a guardrail sized to what village councils — most of which are not incorporated companies with standard contracting capacity — could plausibly execute and account for without a formal open-tender evaluation. As recently as May 2025, villages were being urged by the Ministry of Public Works to consider incorporating precisely so they could handle larger sums. That advice was still being given a little over a year before the ceiling was raised sixfold and $930 million moved.

WHAT CRITERIA? WHAT QUALIFICATIONS?

Minister of Local Government and Regional Development Priya Manickchand has said contracts will only be awarded where villages have “demonstrated capacity to complete the work successfully.”

This publication takes no position on the sincerity of that statement. What it observes is that “demonstrated capacity” is not a criterion; it is a conclusion. No published scoring rubric, no engineering pre-qualification standard, no capacity audit methodology, and no evaluation committee composition has been made public for the thirty-one contracts signed on Saturday.

The 592 Guardian was unable to identify, in any government statement, DPI release, or ministry publication, a single objective standard against which a Toshao’s village was measured before receiving an award of up to $30 million.

That absence is not a technicality. It is the entire question. When $930 million moves through a channel exempt by design from the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board’s open-tender rules, the exemption is only defensible if something else — publicly stated, consistently applied criteria — stands in for the market discipline that competitive bidding would otherwise provide. As of this writing, nothing has.

ON THE OPEN-BID QUESTION, PRECISELY

Readers have asked directly whether these contracts were advertised for open bids. They were not, and under the CPC framework as constituted, they were never going to be — that is the defined character of a Community Participation Contract, not a deviation from it. The relevant failure is therefore not procedural evasion but design: a mechanism built for modest, locally-executed maintenance work has just had its ceiling raised sixfold with no accompanying publication of the safeguards that would ordinarily substitute for competition at that scale. NPTAB’s own procurement guidance draws an explicit line between what falls below threshold, subject only to internal record-keeping, and what rises above it, subject to Board-level scrutiny and public notice. This administration has, in a single week, moved $930 million from one side of that line’s practical effect to the other without moving it formally at all.

IS THIS PATRONAGE?

We are conscious that some in the hinterland will read any scrutiny of this initiative as an attack on Indigenous communities’ right to development finance, and we reject that framing in advance. Toshao Russian Dorrick’s own appeal at the NTC conference — asking the ministry directly, “why not give us the contract, we will do it” — is on the public record and deserves to be taken at face value as a legitimate demand for self-determination in how hinterland infrastructure money is spent. That demand is not the problem.

The problem is a government that answered it by removing competitive and evaluative safeguards rather than building new ones suited to the larger sums now in play.

This news media will will not accuse the administration, on the present record, of purchasing political loyalty in Regions Eight and Nine. That is a serious charge and we have not seen the evidence to sustain it.

What we will say, plainly, is that a $930 million disbursement, announced and executed within a single conference cycle, timed precisely to a gathering of the political constituency it benefits, with no published evaluation criteria and no NPTAB oversight role disclosed, is patronage-shaped whether or not it is patronage-intentioned.

Guyanese taxpayers, and the Indigenous communities this initiative claims to serve, are entitled to know which of the two it is — and the only way to know is for the government to publish what it has so far kept to itself.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NOW

The equipment and training components of this initiative — $1 billion across seven Region Eight clusters, $50 million in technical training, a funded road-safety and signage programme — are, on their face, sound public investment.

None of what follows is a call to unwind them. It is a demand that they be made auditable.

  1. The Ministry of Public Works should publish the evaluation criteria and scoring methodology used to select the thirty-one awardee villages, including whether any village that applied was declined and why.
  2. The Ministry should publish the individual contract value, scope of works, and completion timeline for each of the thirty-one CPCs, not merely the aggregate $930 million figure.
  3. The National Procurement and Tender Administration Board should state, on the record, what oversight role — if any — it retained over CPC awards following the threshold increase from $5 million to $30 million, and whether that increase was formalized in regulation or remains a ministerial instruction.
  4. The Public Procurement Commission, established under Article 212W of the Constitution specifically to guard against exactly this category of risk, should confirm whether it reviewed the threshold change before or after it was announced at the NTC conference.
  5. Village councils that registered as companies to access these contracts should have that corporate and financial structure disclosed, so that beneficial ownership and any contractor relationships are transparent to the communities the money is meant to serve.

None of these five demands require the government to slow down hinterland development. They require it to show its work. An administration confident that thirty-one Toshaos were selected on merit and capacity, rather than proximity to the podium at Arthur Chung, should have no objection to publishing the record that proves it.

— The Board

WHAT IS GOVERNMENT AFRAID A FLOATED MV BARIMA WILL SHOW?

/0 Comments/in , , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN ♦ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM ♦ GUYANA 

WHAT IS GOVERNMENT AFRAID A FLOATED MV BARIMA WILL SHOW?

The Paper Trail Behind the “Family Choice” on Recovery

THE 592 GUARDIAN — EDITORIAL

By Hem Kumar, Editor

The government wants the nation to believe that whether the MV Barima is raised from the seabed remains an open question — one to be decided by the families of the dead, gently and patiently, through consultation.

It has gone so far as to float the idea of retaining, at public expense, a conflict resolution expert should those families disagree among themselves. All very reasonable-sounding. All very procedurally correct.

It is also, on the documentary record now before this news-media, a fiction.

I. Before a single questionnaire was drafted. Before any “consultation process” was announced to the public. Before, as far as this news-media  can establish, most families had been formally approached at all — a document titled “Declaration of Agreement — MV Barima as Memorial Site” was already circulating for signature.

Read that title again. Not a survey. Not a canvass of sentiment. A declaration of agreement. The document does not ask the relative of the deceased what outcome they would prefer. It states, as an accomplished fact, that the vessel will remain a memorial where it sank — and it invites the signature of the grieving to ratify that fact. 

Name of the deceased. Name of the relative. Relationship. Address. Telephone number. Signature line.

That is not the architecture of an inquiry. That is the architecture of a release form — the kind an institution circulates when it needs the record to show consent it has not actually earned.

II. The sequence damns the government more than the document alone. This news outlet timeline shows the Declaration following directly on the heels of Prime Minister Mark Phillips’s own pronouncement in the House — delivered before the families’ “consultation” had even formally begun — that recovery “conditions are not favourable.” The conclusion preceded the process. The verdict came before the hearing.

What followed was not fact-finding. It was the construction of a paper record to justify a decision the Cabinet had already reached in private. The questionnaire, when it did arrive, did not exist to discover what families wanted. It existed to produce signatures consistent with what the government had already decided they should want.

A government that had genuinely left this question open does not tell the nation the vessel is staying down and then go asking families to sign a form agreeing that it should.

III. This casts the “conflict resolution expert” proposal — offered to the public as evidence of the state’s sensitivity to divided family opinion — in a considerably less flattering light. If the outcome was fixed before the canvassing began, there is no live dispute for such an expert to mediate. 

There is only the management of dissent: the handling of those families who decline to sign a script already written for them. Guyanese taxpayers would not be funding conflict resolution. They would be funding compliance management, dressed up as grief counselling.

IV. None of this changes the underlying moral arithmetic, which this news-media  has already set out plainly: it defies belief that any family, absent influence or inducement, would choose to leave a loved one’s remains at the bottom of the Essequibo rather than retrieve them for burial. It defies belief further still that a memorial marker — which is all any family will ever see or touch, whether the vessel is raised or not — cannot achieve every commemorative purpose the government claims only a sunken hull can provide. And it should not need saying, though apparently it does, that surfacing the vessel, recovering the remains and any evidence of value, and returning it to the water afterward serves every party’s stated interest at once — unless one interest was never about grief at all.

The government has already conceded that the manifest cannot reliably establish who was aboard when the Barima went down. Somewhere between that admission and the pre-drafted Declaration sits an uncomfortable question this publication  intends to keep asking: what, precisely, does government fear a floated MV Barima would disclose — and to whom does it owe an answer first, the families, or itself?

The families deserve a genuine choice, honestly presented, before any decision — not a signature drive dressed up as one.

— The Board