The Barima Scandal: Governance by Secrecy, Theatre by Design

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

The Barima Scandal: Governance by Secrecy, Theatre by Design

OPINION BY: STAFF WRITER

If the leaked proposal now in the public domain is authentic—and there is every indication that it is—the Ali administration has crossed from questionable judgment into outright contempt for transparency.

The revelation that a Dutch firm, Koole Onshore and Offshore (KMS), was quietly invited to submit a proposal to raise the sunken MV Barima days before a public Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued is not a minor procedural irregularity.

It strikes at the heart of public procurement integrity. It raises a fundamental and uncomfortable question: was the tender ever meant to be competitive, or merely cosmetic?

This is not a routine infrastructure contract. This is a vessel lying on the seabed with human remains possibly still trapped inside—lives lost, families grieving, and a nation demanding answers. Every decision surrounding the recovery must be beyond reproach. Instead, what is emerging is a pattern of pre-selection, back-channel engagement, and administrative theatre dressed up as due process.

The timeline alone is damning. The MV Barima sank on July 18. By July 28, a foreign firm had already submitted a detailed, 13-page proposal at the government’s invitation—complete with methodology, timelines, and an $8 million price tag. Yet the official RFP was only issued on August 2.

The logical inference is unavoidable: the government had already begun narrowing its preferred outcome before opening the process to scrutiny

This is not how transparent governance operates. It is how outcomes are managed.

The government may argue that preliminary outreach is standard in complex salvage operations. That argument would carry weight if such engagement were disclosed, structured, and extended to multiple firms in a documented and equitable manner. But secrecy negates legitimacy. If other companies were similarly invited, the administration must say so—immediately and unequivocally.

Silence, in this context, is not neutrality; it is complicity.

More troubling is the moral dimension. Families of the deceased and missing have been led to believe that decisions are being taken with care, dignity, and procedural fairness. Instead, what they are now confronting is the possibility that critical decisions were being shaped behind closed doors while public assurances were being carefully staged.

The government cannot have it both ways—claiming transparency while operating in opacity.

The technical aspects of the KMS proposal—parbuckling, buoyancy-assisted righting, recovery in one piece—may well be sound. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the process used to arrive at that solution is legitimate, fair, and defensible.

Even the most technically competent plan becomes tainted when born out of a compromised process.

And there is a deeper danger here. The recovery of the MV Barima is not merely an engineering exercise; it is a forensic necessity.

The vessel may hold critical evidence for the Commission of Inquiry. Any perception that its recovery was pre-arranged risks undermining the credibility of the entire investigative process before it even begins.

This is how public trust erodes—not in dramatic collapses, but in a series of calculated shortcuts justified in the name of expediency.

The Ali administration must now answer, clearly and without evasion:

⇒Who authorised the invitation to KMS?

⇒Were other firms similarly engaged prior to the RFP?

⇒What criteria were used to select KMS for early engagement?

⇒And why was the public not informed?

Anything less than full disclosure will confirm what this episode already suggests—that governance is being conducted in the shadows, while transparency is performed in the spotlight.

The families of the dead do not need theatre. They need truth. The nation does not need managed optics. It needs accountable leadership.

And at this moment, both remain in short supply.

Editor’s Note:

Under Guyana’s Procurement Act, Cap. 73:05, public procurement is governed by core principles of transparency, competition, fairness, and accountability. The Act establishes open tendering as the default method of procurement, with alternative methods—such as restricted tendering or single-source procurement—permitted only under clearly defined and strictly justified circumstances.

Section 25 of the Act outlines the conditions under which restricted or sole-source procurement may be used, including situations of extreme urgency, national emergency, or where only one supplier is capable of performing the contract. However, even in such cases, the procuring entity is required to document the justification, ensure that the process remains as competitive as practicable, and secure the necessary approvals, typically through the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB).

Critically, the law does not permit a procuring entity to engage a preferred supplier in advance and subsequently issue a public tender merely to regularize or legitimize that prior engagement. Such conduct, if established, would undermine the integrity of the procurement process and may constitute a breach of both the letter and spirit of the Act.

Additionally, the Act and accompanying regulations impose obligations for equal access to information among bidders, proper record-keeping, and the avoidance of any practice that could give rise to an unfair competitive advantage. Any deviation—particularly in high-value, high-sensitivity contracts involving public safety or national emergencies—demands heightened scrutiny and full public disclosure.

In this context, the sequence of events surrounding the MV Barima salvage operation raises serious questions as to whether the procedural safeguards required under the Procurement Act were observed, or whether the appearance of competition was substituted for its lawful execution.

THE 592 GUARDIAN

Round One to the People — But the Government’s Pandora’s Box Isn’t Empty Yet

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

BOARD EDITORIAL

Round One to the People — But the Government’s Pandora’s Box Isn’t Empty Yet

Georgetown, August, 2026

By: Hem Kumar, Editor

The Government of Guyana has, for the first time since the MV Barima went down on July 18, done something that looks like listening. On July 31, the Maritime Administration Department (MARAD) issued a formal Invitation for Expressions of Interest for the salvage of the vessel — an implicit reversal of Prime Minister Mark Phillips’s earlier public position that “conditions” were not favourable for recovery, and that additional divers were unlikely to change the outcome.

That reversal did not arrive on its own. It arrived after the Amerindian Peoples Association picketed the Office of the President. After a Gen Z-led coalition held a silent vigil outside the same building. After Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed stood in front of grieving families and offered, publicly and repeatedly, to fund and facilitate the vessel’s recovery at no cost to the Guyanese taxpayer. After editorial pages — this one included — asked, in print, what the Government was afraid a floated MV Barima would show.

Round one belongs to the people of Guyana. Sustained public pressure, not government initiative, forced this outcome. That much should be said plainly, and credited to the families, the protesters, and the civil society organisations who refused to let the vessel — and the seventy-two lives lost with it, and the thirty still missing — disappear from the news cycle.

But round one is not the fight. The manner in which the Government has chosen to deliver on its own concession raises questions serious enough that the applause should be brief.

A Process Built for Delay, Not Urgency

The EOI MARAD issued is not an emergency mobilisation. It is a standard competitive procurement instrument, complete with a submission deadline of Friday, August 14 — more than two weeks after the notice was published, and a couple of weeks after the Opposition Leader first made his offer.

APNU parliamentarian Ganesh Mahipaul has laid out what comes after that deadline: evaluation of submissions for responsiveness, shortlisting, evaluation of bids, contract award, execution of the agreement, mobilisation of equipment and personnel, and only then the issuance of a commencement order. By his estimate — and it is difficult to dispute the arithmetic — actual salvage operations are unlikely to begin before late August, and quite possibly not until September.

We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) has made the same point in different words: the Government “buckled under pressure of the people,” but chose a procurement path that leaves grieving families waiting even longer for the answers they were promised.

“If there was ever a case that justified emergency procurement, surely the worst maritime disaster in modern Guyanese history is one.” — Ganesh Mahipaul, MP

Mr Mahipaul’s underlying argument deserves to be stated in full, because it is not an emotional appeal — it is an institutional one. Guyana’s procurement law permits emergency and sole-source procurement precisely for situations where the public interest demands immediate action.

The 592 Guardian has documented, repeatedly and on the record, this same Government’s comfort with emergency and sole-source procurement mechanisms for projects far less urgent than the recovery of a vessel that is now the final resting place of Guyanese citizens and the single most important piece of physical evidence in the country’s worst maritime disaster.

If the mechanism was available for lesser matters, its absence here is not an oversight. It is a choice. And the Government owes the country an answer as to why it made that choice.

Every Week Underwater Has a Cost

That choice carries a price measured in something other than money. Mr Mahipaul’s warning about evidentiary decay is not alarmist; it is basic marine forensics.

Salt water corrodes mechanical systems, degrades electronic equipment, and alters structural evidence over time. The Commission of Inquiry — whose composition and independence 592 Guardian has already had cause to question — cannot examine what has dissolved.

Every additional week the MV Barima spends on the seabed is a week in which the truth the country was promised becomes a little harder to recover, whether or not that is anyone’s intention.

 

The Offer the Government Never Answered

It bears repeating, because the timeline matters: Azruddin Mohamed’s offer to fund and facilitate the vessel’s salvage through a reputable international marine contractor, at no cost to the taxpayer, was public for days before MARAD’s EOI appeared.

The Government did not accept it. It did not formally decline it. It said nothing — until it produced its own process, on its own timeline, under its own name.

Whatever the merits of running a competitive procurement in the ordinary course of government business, this was not the ordinary course of business, and the silence in the interval invites a question 592 Guardian is not alone in asking: was the delay about due diligence, or was it about who gets to be seen taking Guyana’s dead out of the water?

We do not know. Multiple theories are circulating in Georgetown — that the delay serves to let compromised evidence lose its evidentiary value; that a competitive process opens room for financial arrangements a direct, funded offer would have foreclosed; that the Government could not tolerate handing the Opposition Leader a visible, unanswerable moment of moral authority ahead of the next election.

The 592 Guardian has not verified any of these as fact, and we will not print them as such. But their circulation is itself a symptom of a deeper illness: a Government that has, through its own conduct on this file and others, exhausted the public’s willingness to extend it the benefit of the doubt.

That erosion of trust is not the invention of a hostile press. It is the cumulative result of a commission sworn in behind closed doors, a memorial consent form circulated to families before any genuine consultation began, and a Prime Minister who told the country recovery was unlikely days before his own government opened a tender to attempt exactly that.

Do It Right, or Don’t Claim the Credit

If the Government insists on being the one to raise the MV Barima — rather than accepting an offer that would have put a salvage vessel over that wreck site weeks ago — then it owes the country a process that matches the gravity of what it is recovering.

That means emergency procurement, not routine tender. It means a public, dated commitment to when operations begin, not a rolling estimate. It means transparent chain-of-custody protocols for whatever the vessel yields, developed in consultation with the Commission of Inquiry rather than announced to it.

Anything less turns an act that should carry the dignity the victims are owed into one more exhibit in a pattern the 592 Guardian has now documented for two weeks running.

This is not business as usual. It cannot be treated as business as usual by a Government that spent the first two weeks after July 18 getting the basic facts of its own disaster wrong, correcting them days later, and asking the country to wait for a process it does not yet trust.

Round Two

The people won round one. The Government’s hand was forced, and the vessel will, in principle, come up. But a Pandora’s box of procedural discretion remains open in this Government’s hands — the pace of the tender, the composition of the evaluation, the handling of whatever the wreck yields, and the still-unresolved question of whether the Commission of Inquiry tasked with making sense of it all is itself independent and impartial, given what this Guardian has already documented about its own commissioners.

‘Round two is the accountability fight that does not end when the vessel breaks the surface. It ends when every official whose conduct — before, during, or after July 18 — bears on culpability has answered for it, and it does not end a moment before the Commission of Inquiry delivers findings the public has reason to trust.

The families of the MV Barima are still waiting for closure the Government has had the power to accelerate since the day Azruddin Mohamed made his offer. Every day of procedural delay from here is a day this Government chooses, and a day it will have to account for.

— The Board

Reassurance Is Not Evidence: The Fish-Safety Question the Minister Didn’t Answer

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

BOARD EDITORIAL

Reassurance Is Not Evidence: The Fish-Safety Question the Minister Didn’t Answer

August , 2026 ♦By The Board

Fishermen along the Essequibo Coast and vendors at Bourda Market are watching their livelihoods erode over a claim no one has actually tested. In the three weeks since the MV Barima went down off Essequibo with the loss of scores  of lives, a rumour has spread on social media that the fish sold in Guyana’s markets is contaminated by the disaster.

There is no scientific finding, published study, or government test result that supports this claim. There is also none that refutes it with primary data collected at the site. Both of those sentences are true at once, and the distinction between them is the entire story.

WHAT THE RECORD ACTUALLY SHOWS

Two institutional voices have now spoken to the rumour, and they arrived in the same place from different directions. The Guyana National Fisherfolk Organisation (GNFO) issued a statement over the weekend of August 1-2 arguing there is no scientific evidence that Guyana’s fish supply is unsafe, and noting, correctly, that the Atlantic Ocean spans roughly 106 million square kilometres and that commercial catch is not drawn from a single point on the map.

Agriculture Minister Zulfikar Mustapha followed on Tuesday, telling reporters the established fishing grounds fishermen actually work are far from the wreck site, that there has been no scientific analysis showing contamination, and appealing to the public to keep supporting the industry.

Both statements are geographically and logically sound as far as they go. Guyana’s commercial fishing grounds are a matter of public record and are not located at the Barima wreck site off Essequibo. A ferry sinking, however catastrophic in human terms, does not on its own contaminate an ocean.

The vendors losing income at Bourda Market and on the Essequibo Coast are being hurt by a claim that has no documented basis — including, notably, AI-generated images being recirculated as if they were contemporary evidence, which the 592 Guardian does not treat as credible sourcing in any context.

WHERE THE ARGUMENT BREAKS DOWN

The problem is not that Mustapha is wrong. The problem is that “no scientific analysis has shown contamination” is being offered as though it were equivalent to “testing has shown no contamination.” It is not.

The first is an absence of evidence. The second is evidence of absence. Guyana’s own Environmental Protection Agency operates a real-time water quality monitoring network for the country’s rivers and creeks, built specifically to detect contamination early and inform public health response. Nothing in the public record indicates that instutional, or any comparable marine and fisheries testing regime, was deployed at or near the Barima site in the aftermath of July 18.

This is the accountability gap the Minister’s Tuesday remarks did not close. A geography lesson about where fishing grounds sit is not a substitute for a water sample. An appeal to “good sense” is not a substitute for a laboratory result. If the government is confident enough in the science to ask grieving fisherfolk and struggling vendors to absorb weeks of lost income on the strength of that confidence, it should be confident enough to commission the testing that would settle the question beyond a minister’s assurance.

An appeal to good sense is not a substitute for a laboratory result.

THE QUALIFICATIONS QUESTION, FAIRLY STATED

Critics are right to note that Agriculture Minister Mustapha is not a marine biologist, toxicologist, or public health scientist, and that his portfolio covering Fisheries does not by itself confer technical authority to pronounce on contamination science.

That is a legitimate structural point about how the government communicates on matters requiring technical expertise.                              But it should be aimed precisely, not broadly. The correct response to an unqualified minister making a scientifically plausible claim is not to assume the claim is false — it is to demand the ministry produce the technical finding that would let the public verify the claim for itself, ideally issued by or attributed to the relevant scientific and public health authorities rather than delivered as a minister’s personal reassurance at a press conference.

Put simply: Mustapha’s underlying position — that the established fishing grounds are distant from the wreck and that there is no basis to believe the catch is contaminated — is very likely correct on the geography and the biology.

Guyana’s commercial fisheries do draw from grounds well removed from a single riverine wreck site, and ocean currents do not concentrate contamination the way social media rumour suggests. But “very likely correct” delivered without supporting data is not the same as a government fulfilling its duty to verify and disclose.

The gap between those two things is exactly where public trust is being lost, and exactly where it could be recovered.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED

In the immediate aftermath of a maritime disaster of this scale, a baseline environmental response is standard practice internationally: ⇒Test the water at and around the site for fuel, cargo, and other contaminants

⇒Sample fish tissue from the surrounding area if there is any plausible pathway of exposure;

⇒And publish the results, whatever they show, so that reassurance rests on data rather than on a minister’s say-so.

There is no public indication this happened. Absent that, the Ministry of Agriculture is asking the public to trust an assertion it has not yet backed with its own evidence — a position no more scientifically rigorous than the rumour it is trying to dispel, even though the underlying claim is almost certainly right.

The 592 Guardian’s position is not that the fish is unsafe. The evidence available, including basic marine geography and the fishing industry’s own account of where it operates, suggests it is not. The 592 Guardian’s position is that “trust us, there’s no evidence of contamination” is an inadequate answer to a public health and livelihood question of this magnitude, three weeks into a national tragedy that has already exposed serious gaps in this administration’s crisis communication. Fisherfolk and vendors deserve a government response built on a published test result, not a press conference.

THE 592 GUARDIAN’S POSITION

We renew this news outlet’s  standing view that reassurance without disclosed testing is not a communications strategy the public should be asked to accept on faith, particularly from an administration whose handling of the Barima disaster has already required repeated correction.

We call on the Ministry of Agriculture, in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency and any relevant public health authority, to commission and publish water and tissue sampling from the waters surrounding the wreck site and the commercial fishing grounds nearest to it.

If the results confirm what the Minister has already said, that finding will do more to protect the livelihoods of Guyana’s fisherfolk than any appeal for calm. If they do not, the public has an even clearer right to know now rather than later.

— The Board

MV Barima -The Bridge was Empty

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

MV Barima –The Bridge was Empty

OPINION BY: GHK LALL

First, the disclosures.  This is owed to all Guyanese, none more than the departed in the star-crossed MV Barima.  Next in line are the tragedy struck family members; parents, spouses, children, above all.  Last in line in this first leadership examination is Pres Ali.  Prime Minister Phillips turn is coming.

In this postmortem, the objective is not to dissect Pres Ali and drain him of all plasma.  It is to touch him in soft strokes.  Inspire him to view his actions differently.  Guide him to motivate himself, operate differently, should, God forbid, another disaster visits.

Wherever Pres Ali was-in Canada, in a swamp, in a plane, in a luxury box, in the company of quality people-he had to come to a dead stop and race back to Guyana.  If he was in a plane that might be problematic.  In all other settings, it would have to be the same controlled urgency to his movements.  Except for one.  The one exception I would make to Pres Ali staying one minute longer wherever he was on that horrendous Saturday night, Sunday’s predawn hours, would be as follows. 

The president is out of it, due to serious attention needed.  He was not, and I am grateful to the Almighty, the merciful and the benevolent.  Once he was mobile, in the fullness of his senses, it had to be to Guyana for Pres. Ali.  A charter had to be found.  Leader to leader that should have been very doable.

He and his retinue, his wider circle, may not see matters this way, but he could not distance for a second more than necessary.  With knee bent before God, I submit to Guyanese what I think.  Pres Ali distanced.  Not for long.  But long enough.  He belonged in the company of the Guyanese people. 

No other company could compete for his time and attention.  Nor the lushness of his presence in the hours after that MV Barima Saturday Night Catastrophe of a unique kind. 

It qualifies as a catastrophe in my thinking.  So, when he came all solemnity and warmth, he was already cold in the consideration of citizens traumatized and reeling.

For the record, I repeat: a president is not a private citizen.  A former president is.  The head of a sitting head-of-state is the property of his people.  I see nothing radical in these assertions.  They are inseparable from the role.  It’s not given to pantomime.  Or phantomlike disappearances and reappearances.  There was Brazil before, if recollection serves well.  A president has dotted lines to sign, and lines which he must not cross.  His protocol officers should inform him accordingly.

Pres Ali may be the frontrunner for Guyana’s worst president ever.  When the MV Barima was engulfed in an unconquerable avalanche of water, Excellency Ali had a glorious opportunity to be remembered as Guyana’s most inspiring president ever.  Like I said in the first lines, I do not judge Pres Ali.  Nor is he hoisted aloft.  Guyanese get that duty.  Since the first days of his assumption of the presidency, Excellency Ali has cast a broad shadow.  On the night and morn of the MV Barima being sucked into the depths by forces that hurled aside resistance, Pres Ali cast no shadow.  His shadow was a fairy of the imagination.  His substance was invisible, sprawled on the deck of conjecture.

Where was Guyana’s president in the hour when an SOS calls?  What could be so vital that the dead is made to wait, and the living to wrestle with their demons?  The MV Barima could have been Pres Ali’s finest hour.  Regrettably, his clock could find no minutes making it his dampest.  When the MV Barima went down with the lives of over 100 Guyana lost, Pres Ali should have rose and soared.  He had to be found first.  In retrospect, he was the first unsounded toll.

El Niño Is a Governance Test, Not Just a Weather Event

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

El Niño Is a Governance Test, Not Just a Weather Event

OPINION BY: Staff Writer

Guyana is entering a season that demands more than warnings about heat and dryness. The Hydrometeorological Service has already said the country should prepare for strengthening El Niño conditions, hotter-than-normal weather, fewer wet days, and as many as 80 hot spell days this year, with the greatest exposure in Regions 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10. 

The same advisory warns that reduced rainfall and higher temperatures are likely to stress crops, weaken pasture quality, raise livestock water needs, and increase the risk of water shortages.

El Niño is a Governance Test, not just a Weather Event That means this is not simply a climate bulletin. It is a food, income, and governance problem. If government response remains narrow, delayed, or rhetorical, then the burden will fall on citizens through higher prices, reduced production, and weaker household purchasing power.

 The public has a right to know whether the State is treating this as a serious national emergency or merely as another seasonal inconvenience. The evidence suggests that the risk is already visible. Hydromet has warned of drier conditions, prolonged dry spells, elevated temperatures, and short-term drought conditions in parts of Regions 8 and 9, with localized flooding still possible in low-lying areas. 

In other words, Guyana must prepare for both drought and flood stress at the same time.

 The Budget Must Now Be Tested

The government has repeatedly presented Budget 2026 as a major investment in food security and resilience. In January, the administration said agriculture would receive $113.2 billion, with $81.9 billion going to drainage and irrigation, $3.3 billion for other crops and technical support, and $745 million for agro-processing and storage-related support.  It also said agriculture and water spending was part of a broader effort to strengthen food security and drainage systems.

Those allocations are now under public scrutiny. A budget is not a talking point; it is a contract. If the country is now facing known El Niño risks, then citizens are entitled to ask whether the money was spent on genuine preparedness, and whether the promised infrastructure and support systems are operational.  

That question matters because the same government has claimed Guyana can fully feed its population and that agriculture is central to national resilience.  Such claims cannot be made while the country remains vulnerable to predictable climate shocks without a visible, funded, public response. Resilience is proved in action, not in slogans

What Authorities Must Explain

The Ministry of Agriculture must explain what specific El Niño measures were funded under Budget 2026, how much has been released, and where the projects are active. Farmers need to know whether there is drought-resistant seed distribution, irrigation support, technical extension, and region-by-region advisories. Hydromet has already made clear that crop stress and reduced pasture quality are expected outcomes, so the ministry cannot wait for losses to occur before reacting.

The Ministry of Finance must disclose what contingency planning exists for inflation, food-price spikes, and support to vulnerable households. If imports become more expensive because of global weather disruption, transport costs, or tighter regional supply, then the public should know what fiscal buffers are in place.

The absence of a public protection plan would amount to a policy failure, not a natural inevitability.  

The Ministry of Trade and Commerce must state how it will monitor food prices, prevent hoarding, and ensure that market behavior does not exploit scarcity. Citizens should not be left to discover that the price of basic food has risen only after the damage is already done.

Transparency on monitoring is as important as the monitoring itself.  

Hydromet, the Guyana Water Incorporated, the local government authorities, and the disaster-management system must also stop operating in silos. Hydromet has already described the likely impact on water resources, agriculture, heat stress, and wildfire risk.  That information must be converted into coordinated national action, not left as an isolated technical bulletin.

 What Citizens Should Watch

Citizens should insist on a public action plan that names the lead agencies, the budget lines, the geographic hotspots, and the trigger points for intervention. The plan should show what happens if rainfall falls below a threshold, if food prices spike, if water levels decline, or if crop stress becomes severe. Without trigger points, response becomes improvisation.  

They should also demand regular public updates, not occasional reassurance. The government should publish food-security information, price trends, farmer advisories, and water-risk updates in plain language. That is especially important because the most severe effects will not arrive all at once. They will accumulate quietly through rising costs, shrinking supply, and tighter household budgets.

This is also why local communities must be engaged early. Small farmers,hinterland residents, market vendors, household gardeners, school administrators, and public-health officials all need targeted guidance.

Heat stress, water scarcity, and transport disruption are not abstract risks; they are practical problems that will affect daily life.  

 The Failure That Must Be Avoided

The greatest danger is not only El Niño itself, but a familiar national habit: waiting for the crisis to become visible before treating it as urgent. That approach is costly, unnecessary, and unfair to the people who can least absorb the shock. If food prices rise, if water becomes harder to secure, or if farmers lose productivity, then citizens should be able to trace the failure back to specific offices that had both warning and budget.  

The public should not be told that all hardship is weather-related. Weather is the trigger; policy determines the depth of the damage. Guyana now has enough warning to act, enough money allocated to justify action, and enough institutional responsibility to be held accountable.

This is the moment for the authorities to prove that their promises mean something. The nation does not need more declarations of resilience. It needs a visible plan, disciplined execution, and honest public reporting so that families, farmers, and businesses can prepare together and weather the fallout with less pain.

Readiness Is Not an Occasion — It’s a Standing Duty

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

Readiness Is Not an Occasion — It’s a Standing Duty

OPINION BY: Staff Writer

The Watooka deployment shows the State can move fast. The MV Barima disaster shows what happens when it doesn’t have to.

On August 4, 2026, the Vice President’s public outreach at Watooka House in Linden met a wall of protest. Barriers went down. Gates were forced. And within a short window, the machinery of the Guyanese state answered in full: GDF Coast Guard, the Police Marine Unit, and elements of the Joint Services on the ground to secure the Vice President and his entourage.

No one disputes that the safety of state officials matters. What the  592 Guardian is asking — on behalf of the families of over 100 people who did not come home from the MV Barima — is why that same machinery, with those same institutional muscles, which was reportedly less than 2  hours away from a stricken vessel and a distress call placed at approximately 10:00 p.m. was not operationalized in a similar manner? 

THE EXCUSE THAT DOESN’T HOLD

The predictable defense is that Watooka was scheduled and Barima was not — that planners had daylight and lead time for one, and only a dark river for the other.

We have made this argument’s rebuttal before, and we make it again here in sharper terms: a standing military and security apparatus does not get to claim surprise. Readiness for the unexpected is the entire premise of what these forces exist to do, in Guyana as everywhere else. 

“A Coast Guard that cannot answer a night distress call is not an underfunded Coast Guard having an off night — it is a Coast Guard that has failed at its only non-negotiable function.”

 

GUYANA HAS EVEN LESS EXCUSE THAN MOST

This is not an abstract, textbook point for this country. Guyana’s Joint Services live under a standing, unscheduled threat posture already — repeated incursions and shooting incidents along the Venezuela border have required exactly the kind of no-notice, any-hour readiness that a night-time maritime distress call also demands.

The State cannot simultaneously maintain that its forces are postured and prepared for sudden hostile action across the western border, and then explain away a slow response to a sinking ferry as an unavoidable casualty of the hour.

Either the readiness exists as a standing condition — in which case it should have reached the Barima that night — or it does not, in which case the country deserves to know what, exactly, all the preparedness rhetoric around border security has actually bought it.

WHAT TODAY’S DEPLOYMENT PROVES

We are not asking the State to explain why it protected the Vice President today. That response was appropriate. We are asking the State to explain why the same coordination, the same speed, and the same command reflexes were not already the baseline — every night, on every river, for every vessel — before 179 people needed them and did not get them in time.

THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

These are not accusations. They are questions the Commission of Inquiry has both the mandate and the obligation to answer, plainly and on the record:

  • Could a Watooka-level response have reached the MV Barima in to save additional lives?
  • What emergency response systems were actually in place and operational on the night of July 18?
  • Were the State’s legal obligations on vessel inspection, maritime safety, and emergency preparedness fulfilled — not in principle, but in fact, that night?                                                                                       

The people of Guyana have now watched their state move with speed and coordination when the safety of an official was on the line. They are entitled to ask why the same was not true when the safety of  one hundred and seventy-nine ordinary citizens was on the line. Preparedness cannot be occasion-specific. Accountability cannot be either. ONE GUYANA?

— The Board

Two Processes, One Target

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

FEATURES / COLUMNISTS — RESPONSE

Two Processes, One Target

Peeping Tom is right about the law and wrong about the facts

By: Editor  ·  August 2026

Kaieteur News’s Peeping Tom column of August 1 sets out to correct what it calls a “strange argument” now circulating about the MV Barima case — that a Commission of Inquiry and a criminal prosecution cannot sensibly proceed at the same time.

On the law, the column is largely correct. The Commissions of Inquiry Act does not bar concurrent proceedings. It protects a witness before a Commission against being compelled to incriminate himself; it does not grant immunity, and it does not force prosecutors to wait on a Commission’s findings before laying charges.

Peeping Tom’s account of South Korea’s Sewol disaster — arrests within days of the sinking, murder charges within a month, a disaster-causation inquiry that continued for years afterward without displacing the criminal process — is accurate as description.

What the column does not do is ask the only question that matters here: not whether parallel process is lawful in the abstract, but whether the sequence of events in this specific case shows the law being used to produce, in practice, the very outcome the self-incrimination safeguard was never meant to enable — the silencing of the men most likely to testify about who above them failed first.

“It begs the question: what is the position with the ministers with oversight responsibilities?” — Paul Slowe, former Assistant Commissioner of Police

THE TIMELINE THE COLUMN SKIPS

The record settles the sequence. President Irfaan Ali named the five-member Commission of Inquiry on Sunday, July 26 — Justice Godfrey Phillip Smith of Belize as chair, alongside commissioners from Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Poland. At that announcement, the President’s office confirmed the legal instruments required to formally establish the Commission were still being finalised.

Two days later, on Tuesday, July 28, Captain Kevin Price, Chief Mate Rondell Roberts and Goods Superintendent Delon Granderson were jointly charged with 72 counts of murder and remanded to prison. The Commission itself was not sworn in until July 30 — two days after the men who might have testified before it were already behind bars, already indictable, and already entitled to say nothing.

Former Assistant Commissioner of Police Paul Slowe asked the question publicly the same week, and it is worth recording exactly as he put it: “I thought that persons were identified to form a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the MV Barima tragedy. But now I am reading that three men were this morning charged with murder and remanded to prison, in relation to the same MV Barima tragedy. It begs the question: what is the position with the ministers with oversight responsibilities?”

That is not a fringe or partisan objection. It is a former senior police officer naming, in real time, the exact sequencing problem this news-media  is raising now.

THE MECHANISM PEEPING TOM HANDS US

Peeping Tom’s own reasoning supplies the mechanism. The column is correct that the Act’s safeguard is protection against self-incrimination, not a pause on prosecution. But that protection only activates once a person faces charges — and it is prosecutors and police, not the Commission, who decide when those charges are laid. Charge a man before the Commission can hear from him, and the “protection” the column cites as evidence Parliament anticipated concurrent process becomes, in effect, a mechanism for producing silence at precisely the moment silence is most useful to whoever sits above the accused in the chain of command.

The Sewol comparison actually illustrates the difference rather than erasing it. South Korea’s arrests came within days, but its disaster-causation inquiry ran for years afterward, generating a long investigative record independent of what any charged crew member chose or declined to say early on. Guyana’s Commission, by contrast, had not yet taken a single day of evidence when the three men who operated and loaded the vessel were placed permanently outside its reach.

A MANDATE THAT REACHES ABOVE THE CREW

The Commission’s own terms of reference make plain what was foreclosed. President Ali’s mandate for the CoI explicitly directs it to assess “whether negligence, misconduct, dereliction of duty or institutional failures contributed to the disaster” — language that reaches beyond the vessel’s crew to the regulatory and ministerial chain responsible for oversight. Price, Roberts and Granderson were the men positioned to speak first-hand to loading practice, vessel condition, and whether instructions or pressures from above shaped decisions made that night.

Whatever they might have told the Commission about supervision, maintenance backlogs, or institutional pressure is now filtered through defence counsel and the risk of self-incrimination, in a case members of the legal fraternity are already questioning on its own terms — among them the puzzle of how Granderson, who was not aboard the vessel when it sank, is charged with murder at all, and what motive the prosecution proposes for a theory that would have required the captain and mate to accept their own deaths alongside their passengers’.

WHO THE TIMING SERVES

None of this requires believing the charges are fabricated, or that Price, Roberts and Granderson bear no responsibility.

It requires only asking who benefits from these three men, and no one above them, being the ones whose voices the Commission will not freely hear. Peeping Tom defends the architecture. This publication  is asking who built the timing.

The 592 Guardian renews its position that the Commission of Inquiry’s independence and reach cannot be assessed by its terms of reference alone.

It must be judged by whether the men and women positioned to name institutional failure are still free to do so. On the facts as they now stand, three of them are not.

— The Board

A God-Given Right to Grieving Doorsteps

/0 Comments/in , , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN♣ACCOUNTABILITY♣GOVERNANCE ♣ GUYANA

ON THE PUBLIC RECORD

A God-Given Right to Grieving Doorsteps

How a government that failed Region One in life now tours it in the aftermath — and answers grief with a tighter perimeter

By Hem Kumar, Editor♦August, 2026

There is a particular kind of arrogance that does not shout. It does not need to. It simply shows up — uninvited, unrepentant, and unbothered — on the doorstep of people it has already failed once, certain of its welcome.                                                                                                         This week, the Ali administration showed Guyana exactly what that arrogance looks like, and it wore the faces of the two ministers most responsible for the deadliest maritime disaster in the country’s history.

Victims of Systemic Failure

On August 5, under the banner of a “One-Day Cabinet Outreach” to Region One, Minister of Public Works Juan Edghill walked into Koberimo village in Barima-Waini to “engage” with residents. The same day, Minister of Public Utilities and Aviation Deodat Indar sat down with residents at Kwebanna Primary School. Prime Minister Mark Phillips, accompanied by Chief Investment Officer Peter Ramsaroop, made his own stop in Yarakita, in the Mabaruma sub-district.

All three men walked into the region that absorbed the heaviest toll of the MV Barima tragedy — a region still burying its children, still short of answers, still waiting for the Commission of Inquiry to take its first day of evidence.

This is not oversight. It cannot be. Somewhere in the planning of this tour, someone had to look at a map of Region One, a casualty list, and a resignation demand that has followed Edghill and Indar since July 28 — and decide to send them in anyway.

That decision is the story. Everything else this week is commentary on it.

THE LEDGER BEFORE THE HANDSHAKE

Before Edghill or Indar set foot in Barima-Waini this week, the public record already held their names to account. Edghill’s own claims in the hours after the July 18 capsizing — that the vessel was not overloaded — proved wrong and took days and multiple revisions to correct. Transparency International Guyana Inc. has called for his recusal, not as a prejudgment of what sank the ferry, but on the plain conflict-of-interest grounds that a minister who spoke inaccurately about his own ministry’s disaster within hours of it happening cannot credibly oversee the inquiry into it.

Indar was named alongside him also and within days, in a joint opposition protest that saw MPs march into the National Assembly dressed in black, wearing placards bearing photographs of the dead.

Prime Minister Phillips carries his own ledger. He is the official who stood in the House and pronounced conditions “not favorable” for salvaging the wreck — a declaration that preceded, by 592 Guardian’s own timeline, a document being circulated to grieving families asking them to sign consent for the vessel to remain on the seabed as a memorial site. He is also the man caught, on video this editor has personally verified, in a hallway confrontation with Hadiyyah Mohamed, sister of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, in which his own security made physical contact with her before he called them off himself.

These are not men without a file. Sending them to Region One this week was not a neutral act of government outreach. It was a choice to place the very officials the bereaved have been demanding removed directly in front of the bereaved — and to call it listening.

WHAT “LISTENING” LOOKED LIKE

 The 592 Guardian’s own observation of Edghill’s arrival in Koberimo tells its own story. He was met not by an eager crowd grateful for the visit, but by a handful of residents — mostly women — holding placards. Waiting alongside them was a heavy police presence, officers in flak jackets, positioned less like an honour guard than a warning to anyone else who might have been thinking of joining the demonstration.

Ask what kind of government sends a disgraced minister to shake hands with the grieving, and then answers the grief that shows up with riot gear, and the honest answer is: a government more interested in managing the optics of accountability than in being accountable. The flak jackets were not there to protect Edghill from Koberimo. They were there to remind Koberimo what happens if it pushes back.

Nowhere in the government’s own press language — “engaging with residents,” “discussing critical infrastructure priorities,” “providing updates on ongoing and planned public works initiatives” — does the word Barima appear. The disaster that killed their neighbours, that emptied seats in the Port Kaituma Primary School where two small brothers were laid to rest in a shared grave, is simply absent from the official account of why Edghill was there.

It is buried inside a routine outreach photo opportunity, alongside toshao-raised infrastructure matters, as though grief were just one more line item on the agenda.

A TOUR THAT STARTED WITH A WARNING

None of this happened in a vacuum. The day before the Region One tour began, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s own outreach event at Watooka House in Linden was met by a protest that would not be managed quietly.                                                                                          After being told the Vice President would meet them “in ten minutes,” protesters waited half an hour, then surged forward and tore down the security barricades themselves. What followed was a six-hour standoff. APNU leader Aubrey Norton joined the picket line in person. Demonstrators demanded Edghill and Indar’s resignations, and the long-overdue election of a Region 10 Chairman and Vice Chairman. Jagdeo did not come out to meet them. He left under security escort roughly eight hours after the standoff began, without ever addressing the crowd he had kept waiting.

That is the immediate backdrop against which Edghill, Indar, and Phillips walked into Region One the very next day.                                    A government that watched its own Vice President’s barricades come down in Linden did not respond by reconsidering whether to send the two most-demanded resignations into the region hit hardest by the disaster.

Flak -Jacket Welcome

It responded by tightening the perimeter and sending them anyway — this time with flak jackets waiting at the dock.

THE BOAT THAT DIDN’T GET THROUGH

The same day Edghill was in Koberimo, Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s chartered speedboat was stopped by the Guyana Defence Force Coast Guard at the Pomeroon Floating Base, as he made his way to a peaceful protest in Moruca. The GDF’s account is that this was a routine inspection: the vessel’s captain could not produce a valid boat master’s licence, vessel licence, and certificate of inspection, and was directed back to Charity to obtain them.

LOO and MP’s held up by Coast Guard

Mohamed’s account complicates that framing considerably. He says the boat had departed Charity around 7:30 a.m. and had already passed the same checkpoint earlier that morning without being asked for any documentation. It was only on returning to check in — after a soldier’s presence and a request to photograph the boat’s occupants, which they did not resist — that the licensing demand was made. If that timeline holds, the “routine inspection” defence collapses on its own facts: a genuinely routine procedure does not selectively remember to ask for paperwork only on the trip carrying the Leader of the Opposition to a demonstration.

APNU parliamentary leader Dr. Terrence Campbell was blunt about what he believes this represents, calling it a weaponisation of the Guyana Defence Force against the constitutional rights to freedom of movement and freedom of association, and linking it directly to the security posture deployed at Watooka the day before. Whatever the truth of the licensing dispute, the sequence itself is now on the public record: barricades breached in Linden on Wednesday, heavier security in Region One and an intercepted opposition boat on Thursday. That is not coincidence.

That is a government recalibrating its defences after being confronted by grief, rather than recalibrating its conduct.

THE EPITOME OF AN UNCARING GOVERNMENT

Strip away the press-release language and what is left is a simple, ugly picture. A government whose named ministers failed the people of Region One in life is now touring their villages in the aftermath, expecting to be received — and deploying flak-jacketed police and Coast Guard checkpoints to manage anyone who declines to receive them warmly.

It is a government that has confused proximity with accountability, and access with forgiveness, as though showing up were itself an act of grace rather than the bare minimum owed to families still without full answers on how their loved ones died.

No one is arguing that ministers should never again set foot in Region One. The opposite is true: the region deserves sustained, serious engagement — infrastructure, healthcare, honest answers on the Commission of Inquiry’s timeline, and support for the mourning that is nowhere near finished.

What it does not deserve is a stage-managed visit from the very men whose names appear on resignation placards, flanked by riot gear, dressed up as consultation. That is not listening.

It is a government that believes turning up is itself a form of forgiveness it is entitled to receive, whether or not the aggrieved are prepared to give it.

Guyana is watching a pattern now, not an incident: Watooka’s barricades, Koberimo’s flak jackets, a stopped boat on the Pomeroon. Each one is a government answering grief and dissent with a tighter perimeter instead of an honest reckoning.

That is the epitome of an uncaring government — not merely indifferent to what its citizens have suffered, but unwilling to let that suffering interrupt its own schedule.

— The 592 Guardian

SELF-PRESERVATION, NOT PRINCIPLE

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

 SELF-PRESERVATION, NOT PRINCIPLE

What GMSA’s Sudden Voice on the Water Plant Reveals

By; Hem Kumar, Editor

The Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association has, this week, said something true. Its August 4 press release identifies a real conflict of interest in the $496.3 million the National Assembly approved for a state-owned bottled water plant under Guyana Water Incorporated — capital deployed by the state directly into a market that private Guyanese manufacturers already serve, with their own money, at their own risk.

The Association is right to call for a review. It is right to point out that President Ali’s own February commitment, at the Bartica plant commissioning, described a shared-infrastructure model, not a state producer competing against the businesses it claims to be strengthening.

What is worth examining is not whether GMSA’s complaint has merit. It does. What is worth examining is why it took a threat to members’ own balance sheets to produce it.

A RECORD OF WELCOME, NOT WATCHFULNESS

GMSA’s public statements over the past eighteen months form a consistent pattern, and it is one the Association has built proudly and on the record. It welcomed Budget 2025 within days of its presentation, citing income tax adjustments and SME market-development funding as reasons for its enthusiasm. It welcomed Budget 2026 as a “game changer,” citing the removal of corporate taxes on agro-processing and the launch of the Guyana Development Bank — the same Development Bank Bill that passed the National Assembly on July 27, 2026 without debate, without independent board representation, and without a word of public concern from GMSA about the $40 billion in ministerial discretion it concentrated in one office.

It thanked the Government for securing reduced US tariffs on Guyanese exports. It welcomed the opening of the Demerara River Bridge as a competitiveness win. In December, marking its own thirtieth anniversary, GMSA told the public directly that the Government’s five-year economic agenda “closely reflect[ed] long-standing policy recommendations and advocacy advanced by the GMSA on behalf of its members.”

That is not the record of a watchdog. It is the record of a partner — one that has, by its own account, had the Government’s ear and used it successfully.

•Where was that same voice when the Development Bank Bill moved through the same sitting the water plant did, concentrating discretionary lending authority with no debate?

•Where was it during any of the accountability fights this Board and others have carried over the past year — the sequencing questions, the unexplained appointments, the pattern of legislation moving fastest when public attention is fixed elsewhere?

GMSA was not silent because it lacked standing to speak. It has proven, repeatedly, that when it speaks, government listens. It was silent because none of those matters touched its members’ pockets.

THE CHICKENS AND THE POCKETBOOK

This is not a case for cynicism about the water plant complaint itself — the complaint stands on its own facts, and this Board has made a version of the same argument elsewhere.

It is a case for clarity about what has changed. What changed is not GMSA’s appetite for good governance. What changed is that the State, for the first time in this run of documented alignment, has turned its commercial weight toward GMSA’s own membership rather than toward their competitors, their tax bills, or their trade barriers.

The Association has found its voice now because self-preservation, unlike principle, does not wait to be invited.

There is a lesson here for every private-sector body that has treated proximity to government as a substitute for independence. Access purchased with silence is access that lasts only as long as your interests and the State’s happen to run in the same direction.

 

GMSA is discovering, publicly and in real time, what that arrangement is worth the moment those directions diverge. The water plant may well be reviewed. The $40 billion Development Bank will not be, because the body best positioned to demand it already spent its credibility welcoming the bill that created it.

GMSA is owed a serious answer on the bottled water plant. It is also owed the observation, plainly made, that a voice raised only when the wallet is threatened is not oversight.

It is self-interest wearing the language of principle — and Guyana’s private sector, as a whole, will need to decide whether that is the posture it wants to be known for the next time the State’s ambitions cross into its own territory.

— The Board

A Checklist Appears, and So Does the Question: Cover for Whom?

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

A Checklist Appears, and So Does the Question: Cover for Whom?

By; Hem Kumar, Editor

There is a particular kind of document that only ever surfaces after a tragedy — never before it.

Gerry Gouveia, National Security Adviser to President Irfaan Ali, has posted to Facebook a polished, 28-point “Captain’s Pre-Departure Safety and Seaworthiness Checklist,” complete with an invocation of a “Captain’s Oath” declaring that “the decision to sail rests solely with the Captain” and that “no owner, manager, government official, charterer, customer, or commercial interest has the authority to compel a Captain to sail an unsafe vessel.”

The timing is not incidental. It arrives as the preliminary hearing against Captain Kevin Price and crew members Rondell Dwayne Roberts and Delon Granderson — the three men charged with 77 counts of murder each over the MV Barima disaster — has been rescheduled to give prosecutors more time to prepare their case, and as the Commission of Inquiry into the disaster gathers pace.

A senior presidential adviser choosing this moment to circulate a document whose entire architecture places “sacred responsibility” and “sole authority” on the captain’s shoulders is not a neutral act of public education.

It is advocacy, dressed as instruction, aimed squarely at the inquiry and the courtroom before either has finished its work.

A document with no provenance. To the best of the Guardian’s knowledge, this checklist has never previously surfaced in any public accounting of the MV Barima’s operations, MARAD’s regulatory framework, or the Transport and Harbours Department’s own procedures.

If such a checklist genuinely governed Guyana’s ferry operations before July 18, the obvious question is why it was never made public to demonstrate compliance — or non-compliance — with the standard it describes.

A safety document produced after a disaster, to explain who should be blamed for it, is not evidence of a system that existed. It is, at best, a statement of what officials now wish had existed. At worst, it is a script ,

The double standard the 592 Guardian has already documented.       This publication’s rebuttals to Kaieteur’s Peeping Tom column made the point plainly: government and its allies have applied a “wait for the process” standard rigorously to Minister Edghill’s recusal question while showing no comparable patience toward the three men already in custody.

Gouveia’s post deepens that asymmetry. It does not ask the public to wait for the Commission of Inquiry to establish the chain of causation. It preemptively supplies the answer — the captain alone decides, the captain alone is responsible — while the men who might have relied on a functioning regulatory apparatus, an accurate manifest, or a properly resourced MARAD are still awaiting their day in court.

What the checklist conveniently omits.

Nothing in Gouveia’s post references the “24-Metre Gap” identified in the Millington legal paper the 592 Guardian has already covered — the regulatory loophole under which a vessel the Barima’s size fell outside both the passenger-ship stability rules and the cargo-ship safety requirements.

Nothing references Section 3(3) of the Guyana Shipping Act, which makes MARAD’s own Director the legal “owner” of state-registered vessels, collapsing the line between regulator and operator.

Nothing references MARAD’s own 2022 disclosure that it had six certified surveyors for over 2,000 vessels, or that a Surveyor post sat vacant into 2026.

A checklist that assigns total moral and legal weight to the man on the bridge, while remaining silent on the statutory and institutional failures identified by independent maritime scholarship, is not safety education. It is a liability transfer.

The DPP’s timeline invites its own scrutiny. The charges against Price, Roberts, and Granderson were laid with visible speed — a week that suggested the Director of Public Prosecutions had her case fully assembled.

The subsequent decision to push back the preliminary hearing to give prosecutors more preparation time sits awkwardly against that initial alacrity.

Either the charges were laid before the evidentiary foundation was complete, or something has changed in the interim about what the State believes it can prove and against whom. The public deserves to know which.

A National Security Adviser publishing a document that pre-argues the defendants’ culpability, in the same window in which prosecutors have asked for more time, is not a coincidence this news-media is prepared to treat as innocent.

The standing demand. The 592 Guardian has repeatedly called on the Office of the President to disclose the vetting and provenance behind appointments connected to this disaster — the Commission’s commissioners, the Audit Team, the CoI Secretary.

We now extend that call to this document.

⇒Where did this checklist originate?

⇒When was it drafted?

⇒Was it ever circulated within MARAD or the Transport and Harbours Department before July 18?

⇒If it existed, why was it never published as evidence of the standard the state expected its ferry captains to meet?

And if it did not exist until now, the public is entitled to call this what it is: a last-minute framework built to survive an inquiry, not to have prevented a tragedy.

Seventy-three people are dead. The instinct to find a single, simple villain is understandable — but instinct is not investigation, and a Facebook post is not a finding.

The Commission of Inquiry exists precisely so that institutional failure and individual conduct can both be examined, without either being pre-judged by whoever moves fastest to shape the narrative.

Guyana does not need officials doing the Commission’s job for it in advance. It needs the Commission left to do its own.