What Is the State Protecting? On the Barima, the Government Chose Control Over Truth

/0 Comments/in , , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN ◊ EDITORIAL · ACCOUNTABILITY & PRESS FREEDOM

What Is the State Protecting? On the Barima, the Government Chose Control Over Truth

July 2026 — Georgetown

There is a version of this country’s institutions that likes to imagine itself modern — plugged into satellite feeds, WhatsApp groups, a diaspora that refreshes news sites from three time zones away.

And then there is the version that showed up at the Umana Yana last Sunday: a junior minister pointing at a journalist without a camera and ordering her removed from the yard, not merely the room, because grieving families were said to be “complaining about press.” No family at that fence made that complaint. The families that spoke, spoke to the reporters they’d just watched get thrown out.

This is the plain shape of what has happened in the five days since the M.V. Barima went down off the Essequibo Coast with more than 150 people aboard: a government that cannot control the sea has decided it can at least control who gets to describe what the sea did.

And it has pursued that lesser, uglier goal with a discipline it rarely brings to anything else.

A BLACKOUT WITH A PAPER TRAIL

Start with the facts the Guyana Press Association has now placed on the record, because they do not require inference. A Kaieteur News journalist was ejected from the Umana Yana grounds by police on the instruction of Junior Minister Kwame McCoy, while state-aligned outlets remained inside. A second journalist was removed from Oscar Joseph Hospital in Charity despite survivors having agreed to speak.

The following day, when President Ali visited bereaved families at the Charity Waterfront, the same reporter was again walked off the grounds — this time cutting off independent coverage of the Head of State’s own meeting with the people he represents.

By midweek, security personnel at the Essequibo Technical Institute shelter were telling reporters, without further explanation, that they had orders barring any contact with survivors housed there. A drone used for aerial coverage was confiscated. A Guyana Defence Force vessel shadowed a boat carrying journalists during search operations. Media workers were photographed in the field — not by other press, but by the state apparatus watching them work.

None of this is disputed. It is not an opposition talking point or an anonymous allegation. It is the account of the Guyana Press Association, on the record, naming a sitting minister.

A government that cannot control the sea has decided it can at least control who gets to describe what the sea did.

THE MISINFORMATION ALIBI, INVERTED

Officials have not explained the restrictions publicly — GPA said as much, and as of this writing neither the Police Force nor any other authority has offered a rationale. But the implicit justification, when pressed informally, tends toward the usual formula: protecting victims, protecting the integrity of the operation, guarding against misinformation in a moment of national grief.

Former GPA President Nazima Raghubir dismantled that alibi in a single sentence worth repeating in full: the irony of officials citing misinformation while much of the actual misinformation traces back to official sources. You cannot claim the mantle of information hygiene while your own ministers are the ones improvising justifications for ejecting reporters on the spot.

Consider what “protecting families from the press” actually meant in practice on Sunday. It meant families at the Umana Yana walked to a low fence, on their own initiative, to speak to the journalists who had just been thrown out — and asked, in GPA’s account, what the point of barring the press even was, since some people would only learn what happened to their relatives through independent coverage. The families were not the ones asking for a blackout. The blackout was imposed on their behalf, against their expressed wishes, by officials who then invoked their grief as the justification.

That is not victim protection. It is the appropriation of victims as a shield for a decision the victims did not make and, in this instance, actively rejected.

WHAT A FREE PRESS COSTS THE STATE — AND WHAT ITS ABSENCE COSTS THE PUBLIC

A functioning accountability press is expensive to a government in exactly one currency: the ability to shape a death toll, a timeline, a sequence of decisions, before the public can check it against anything else. That is precisely the currency in short supply here.

Reporters have been denied access to the Onderneeming Mortuary and to health facilities where the injured and the dead are being processed, which means the only verified count the public has is whatever the state chooses to release, whenever it chooses to release it. In a disaster of this scale, that is not a minor procedural inconvenience. It is the removal of the single mechanism — independent, on-the-ground verification — by which a grieving public can trust a number it did not generate itself.

This is where the Government’s posture stops being merely heavy-handed and starts being self-indicting.

A state confident in its handling of a maritime disaster does not need to eject unarmed reporters from a yard. It does not need to shadow press boats with a Defence Force vessel. It does not need to seize a drone. Those are not the actions of an administration managing chaos; they are the actions of an administration managing a narrative — and narratives only need managing when the underlying facts are something other than what officials would prefer the public to believe.

So we return to the question this news media  is not alone in asking. What, precisely, is being protected? Is it the families — who by their own account wanted the press present and said so at a fence line?

Is it the rescue operation — which GPA has explicitly said journalists have offered to work around, and are not the ones obstructing? Or is it something closer to the truth: an accounting of how a vessel carrying over 150 people was allowed to be in the position it was in, who signed off on its seaworthiness and its passenger load, and how a search-and-recovery operation has been run in the days since — an accounting that becomes harder to control the moment independent journalists are permitted to ask survivors and officials the same question twice.

THE DEMAND

The Guyana Press Association has been notably restrained in its public posture — Iva Wharton has stressed repeatedly that journalists are not there to fight the police or the state, only to document.

That restraint should not be mistaken for the limit of what is owed. The 592 Guardian joins GPA in calling on the Guyana Police Force and the Ministry under whose authority Minister McCoy acted to do three things without further delay: publicly explain, in specific and falsifiable terms, the legal basis for excluding accredited journalists from public grounds, hospitals, and shelters during this disaster; restore immediate, unsupervised media access to the ETI shelter and Onderneeming Mortuary consistent with the consent already given by survivors and families; and account, on the record, for the instruction given to police at the Umana Yana on July 19th and for who authorised it.

A government with nothing to hide answers those three questions by the end of this week. A government managing something else will keep finding reasons why it cannot.

— The Board

Edghill must go; I say NO!

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

Edghill must go; I say NO!

The clamor is thunderous: EDGHILL MUST GO! I say NO! The people who put Minister Juan Edghill where he is must go. The people who kept Minister Edghill there must go. I take these positions for these reasons.

First, if Pres Ali was present in the hour of crisis, there would be no Juan Edghill making representations that now haunt him, load him with regrets. I believe he still has that human essence. I think that Pres Ali would have pushed him aside, and raced to the forefront to sell his own productions. I ask pro-PPP and anti-PPP Guyanese to think. Would Minister Edghill been given a chance to inform, defend? I don’t think so. So, who would have been the one lashing out at “overload” and “engine failure”? Minister Edghill would have had to hug the sidelines.

In his president’s absence, due to the urgencies attached to the presidency, Minister Edghill was saddled with the chore of going into full defensive-aggressive mode and tear apart those finding fault with the government.

Denounce “overload” and “engine” issues as fake news and mischief. He did. Then the bottom beneath Juan Edghill crumbled. Fake news was real news. Mischief transformed to prophetic truth. Minister Edghill, like the proverbial whale, was left stranded on the beach. He didn’t venture too far, or spoke too quickly. He did what had become normalized in the PPP Govt. Denied. Deflected. Denounced. Dismissed.

Second, I pardon the minister for over zealousness (no overload, no engine problem). But who would pardon the minister, or any other in the government, when a brand-new boat bought in 2023 has not yet been put in service? To repeat my Catholic Standard comment: did Guyana get a new boat, or a pig in a bag? He had delivered a defensive mouthful in Stabroek News, in June 2023. Now comes the contradiction: Why is the MV Ma Lisha in drydocks with a fixup bill for almost $200 million?

This was what sent the doomed MV Barima to the seafloor. To carry over a hundred Guyanese to their deaths. Adolf Hitler and Adolf Eichmann used to transport Jews to waiting chambers of death. What’s different with the steel chambers of the MV Barima that led to the end of over a hundred sons and daughters of Guyana? Were they, also, a lower life form? Were they, too, undesirable, hence, expendable?

Third, I expand my earlier pig-in-bag assertion. Scan the tender rehab documents for the MV Ma Lishha. Guyana didn’t get a new boat. Not with that many repair areas and systems needing replacement or revitalizing. Without a mile traveled. Was that boat cannibalized and Guyana sold a shell? Well-camouflaged, naturally. A shell of a boat that made the MV Barima into a death boat. When the MV Ma Lisha couldn’t pull its own weight, then the already sickly, rickety, MV Barima was deadweight in the most fatal meaning of the word.

Fourth, the ones who should go are those involved in the US$12.7 million MV Ma Liska. Was it stripped down in India? Or was it vandalized in Guyana? Now it needs US$1 million to oxygenate into working life. The Indian firm should reimburse Guyana that amount, AND 50 percent of the cost price for this dud ship. I pray that it is not another floating deathtrap for poor, hardworking, and tricked Guyanese.

Cubans aren’t the only ones in Guyana getting cheated with what’s due to them. The Guyana Government does that to its own. Guyanese were either double-crossed with that boat, or they are now been given double-talk with its condition. These mysteries now forever link the MV Ma Liska and MV Barima. One paralyzed; the other dead.

Finally, keep Minister Edghill right where he is. So that Guyanese always remember him for the 100+ citizens who died, but should never have. The ones above him should go.

1960s England, a sex scandal dispatched the MacMillan government. In 2026 Guyana, 100+ Guyanese die in a mass killing, and the PPP Government resists going.

THIS TRAGEDY WAS WAITING TO HAPPEN

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

THIS TRAGEDY WAS WAITING TO HAPPEN

OPINION BY: Leyland Chitlall Roopnaraine

The horrific loss of nearly 103 lives lies squarely in the hands of the authorities entrusted with public transportation. How else can anyone explain an 87-year-old boat, for major repairs a few months before it capsized, ferrying some 130 persons on a 12-hour journey in some of Guyana’s most treacherous seas?

Here are a few facts on the MV Barima:

  • The MV Barima was built by the Scottish company, Ferguson Brothers (Port Glasgow) Ltd. in 1939, and was registered and launched in British Guiana in November 17, 1939.
  • In 1966, after Independence, the government of Guyana assumed ownership.
  • The MV Barima broke down in 2017 and was repaired at a cost of GY$150 million, and put back into commission.
  • In 2021 major engine components were replaced in an emergency. 
  • In 2022 portions of the MV Barima were deemed to have seriously deteriorated. As a result, it was subject to emergency repairs for two weeks at a cost of GY$90 million.
  • The MV Barima was again subject to critical repairs in 2024 at the Parika dockyard.
  • It was slated to be dry-docked in the later part of this year and upgraded at a cost of GY$124.5 million. 

What is of grave concern is the fact that in 2023 Minister Edghill stated in Parliament that the US$12.7 million replacement vessel, the MV MA Lisha was enroute from Calcutta, India. In fact, the bishop travelled to India to attest to the vessel sea worthiness.

No doubt the PPP will invoke the usual defense of this catastrophe, but the vessel did not sink because the crew was using narcotics or drinking..Alcohol did not erode a hull or allow water to pour into the vessel even before it went to sea. The salient question must be: why would such a vessel be allowed to sail with its given documented history of water intake, passenger and cargo overload and unrecorded passenger manifests?

Just like the ’inquiry’ of the Madhia fire which claimed 20 lives, the proposed investigation-even though promising- will reveal what all Guyanese already knows: the lives of the populace take second place while PPP government is more focused on personal wealth attainment. The ministers drive around in Prados and Land Cruisers while Guyanese at large, with some 58 % living below the poverty line, must endure hardships.

And while Opposition Leader, Mohamed Azruddin, has joined the search and rescue efforts in the North -west, his premises were searched by some 20 police and SOCU officials whose energies could have been directed towards the rescuing of those souls that still reside on. the MV Barima.

 THE 592 GUARDIAN

MV  Barima Tragedy Exposes Two Styles of Public Service

/0 Comments/in , /by

 

 592 GUARDIAN ◊ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM FOR GUYANA

  MV  Barima Tragedy Exposes Two Styles of Public Service

A national tragedy has a way of stripping political theatre bare. In the wake of the MV Barima capsizing, Guyana has been offered a stark contrast between those who are willing to stand in the heat, the grief, and the uncertainty, and those who are content to lecture from the cool comfort of an office.

This is not merely a dispute over optics. It is a revealing snapshot of how public office is understood by those who occupy it. For some, service means presence, urgency, and action. For others, it appears to mean issuing stern statements, policing narratives, and condemning anyone whose conduct does not fit the government’s preferred script.

The latest attack on Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, who has been involved in search and recovery efforts after the disaster, is especially telling.     

The Prime Minister’s office has chosen to frame that involvement as political opportunism, even as families remain in anguish and the search for the missing continues. That is not leadership. That is a reflex to protect image at the very moment the country needs humility, coordination, and visible compassion.

When office becomes a shield

There is something deeply troubling about public servants who discover moral outrage only when someone else is doing the work.

It is easy to denounce “political attention” from behind a desk. It is much harder to brave the rough weather, the uncertainty, and the emotional wreckage left by a tragedy of this magnitude.

The question is not whether political actors will seek public visibility. Of course they will. Their job description is actually “public service”

The question is whether they are present in moments of national pain when presence matters most. If one leader is on the ground with rescuers and grieving families while another is issuing sermons from an air-conditioned office, the public is entitled to notice the difference.

And that difference is not cosmetic. It speaks to temperament, priorities, and a basic philosophy of public service. One style is hands-on, visible, and human. The other is managerial, defensive, and suspicious of anything it does not control.

The government’s comfort with commentary

This administration seems increasingly addicted to commentary and allergic to accountability. It is quick to scold, quick to posture, and quick to accuse others of exploiting tragedy. But it is not nearly as quick to confront the harder question: why does it  often take a crisis for the state to appear awake?

The MV Barima disaster has exposed not only the fragility of maritime safety, but also the reflexive instinct of the government to turn public pain into a communications exercise.

Instead of centering on the missing, the dead, and the families left behind, the state rushes to manage perception. Instead of answering for prevention and preparedness, it lashes out at those who are visibly trying to help. That is a poor substitute for governance.

A government that treats public service as a press release will eventually be judged by the gap between its words and its deeds. And that gap is widening.

A tale of two responses

The contrast could not be clearer. On one side, there is the man in the field, trying to assist with recovery in harsh conditions, where leadership is measured in sweat, endurance, and proximity to suffering. On the other side, there is the official response that appears more concerned with who is getting attention than with who is doing the work.

That is the real scandal here. Not that one political figure may be visible. But that visibility itself has become something the government treats with suspicion when it is not generated by its own machinery.

This is how a culture of public service decays: first by replacing action with messaging, then by ridiculing those who still believe leadership must be seen where people are hurting. Eventually, the state stops asking what it can do and starts asking how it will look.

The dignity issue

There is, of course, a legitimate point buried inside the government’s statement: victims must be treated with dignity, and graphic images of the dead should never be turned into currency for clicks. That is true. It should be said plainly.   

But moral correctness on one point does not excuse evasiveness on the larger issue. A government cannot invoke dignity while simultaneously diminishing the visible efforts of others who are trying to help in a time of national grief.

It cannot claim sensitivity while speaking in a tone that suggests its first concern is to control the narrative, not to serve the people.

When tragedy strikes, the public does not need lectures delivered from polished offices. It needs competence, compassion, and courage. It needs leaders who understand that service is not a slogan. It is a duty.

 

What this moment reveals

The MV Barima tragedy has become more than a maritime disaster. It has become a test of character. And the contrast now on display should trouble every citizen who still believes public office is meant to serve, not to stage-manage.

The opposition leader may be accused of seeking attention. But the real question is why the government seems so enraged by visible effort from anyone outside its circle. Why does a state so often appear irritated by the very acts of public-mindedness it ought to welcome? Why does it sound most forceful when speaking against others, and least convincing when explaining its own failures? 

That is the anomaly this tragedy has thrown into sharp relief. One side shows up. The other side talks. One side risks exposure to help people. The other side hides behind language and calls it leadership.

Guyana deserves better than this hollow performance. It deserves public servants who understand that when lives are at stake, the measure of leadership is not who controls the microphone, but who is willing to get wet, get dirty, and get to work.

THE MANIFEST WAS THE FIRST LIE

/0 Comments/in , /by

 

 592 GUARDIAN ◊ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM FOR GUYANA

THE MANIFEST WAS THE FIRST LIE

Who Signed Off on the MV Barima, and Why Are They Still Employed?

The 592 Guardian — Editorial Board. July 2026

As this commentary is about to go live, the government has confirmed 103 dead. The real number is likely higher; bodies are still being recovered from the sea floor off the Pomeroon, and the Prime Minister himself has said divers expect to find more. President Ali has declared three days of national mourning beginning today. Flags fly at half-mast. There will be a National Day of Prayer at the Kingston Seawall this afternoon, and nights of reflection in Port Kaituma and Mabaruma over the two days after.

We will observe that mourning in good faith. But mourning is not accountability, and the Guardian does not confuse the two. Grief is owed to the dead. Answers are owed to the living — and to the families still not knowing whether their relatives are among the unaccounted-for or the recovered-but-unidentified. That distinction is the whole of what this editorial is about.

The Manifest Was Not an Error. It Was a System.

When the MV Barima went down off Iron Punt on Saturday night, the government did not know how many people were on board. Of the first 67 people rescued, only 35 appeared on the official manifest. Minister Edghill has called the omission “criminal conduct.” We agree with his word choice, if not yet his target. A manifest is the state’s promise that it knows who is in its custody when it puts them to sea.

That promise broke at scale — not an oversight, but a system that was never built to hold anyone accountable.

A Drug-Impaired Captain, Tested Only After the Sea Decided the Outcome

The captain and first engineer tested positive for cannabis after rescue. Edghill: “I can understand a sailor, but not a captain… people’s lives are at risk.” We ask: where was the pre-departure screening the ministry claims is “routine”? Produce the testing logs — or admit “zero tolerance” was a phrase for press conferences, not wharves.

A 1939 Vessel, a 2026 Government, and the Word “Within Schedule”

Built in 1939, last dry-docked in 2024, “never declared unseaworthy” — a claim that no one looked hard enough to say otherwise, or said so and wasn’t heeded. Guyana has the oil revenue today to retire an 87-year-old passenger vessel. That it didn’t is a choice about whose safety was worth the capital expenditure.

Edghill’s Suspensions Answer the Wrong Question

Suspending the onshore loading team is swiftness aimed downward, not accountability aimed correctly. We are formally asking: who at MARAD, at the Transport and Harbours Department, and in the Ministry signed off on — or failed to flag — this vessel’s certification, crewing, and manifest integrity?

What This Publication  Is Demanding

Joining the opposition, Christopher Ram, and the Rescue Guyana coalition in calling for a Shipping Act Commission of Inquiry, independent of the implicated ministry, with subpoena power — and immediate release of inspection records, testing logs, wharf surveillance footage, and the named chain of sign-off authority.

The Line We Will Hold

This is not a story about one old boat. It’s a story about whether the state’s oversight chain became so hollow it took 103 confirmed deaths to produce paperwork that should have existed before boarding. 

The 592 Guardian is calling on President Irfaan Ali to immediately remove the Minister of Public Works, the Board of Marad and the Director-General of the Maritime Administration Department (MARAD) to ensure an independent and transparent investigation into the sinking of the MV Barima.

 — The Board

 

THE MINISTRY KNEW: MV Barima Tender Document Contradicts Edghill’s “Kept Intact” Claim

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

THE MINISTRY KNEW: MV Barima Tender Document Contradicts Edghill’s “Kept Intact” Claim

The 592 Guardian

July, 2026

As search and rescue teams continue to comb more than a thousand square kilometres of Atlantic coastline for dozens of Guyanese still unaccounted for, Public Works Minister Juan Edghill told the country last night that there was “no report declaring the vessel unfit for service,” and that the MV Barima “has been kept intact.”

That statement can now be tested against the Ministry’s own paper trail. It does not hold up.

The Document

In March 2026 — four months before the MV Barima capsized off the Essequibo Coast with 133 passengers and crew aboard — the Ministry of Public Works, through the Transport and Harbours Department, published a Bill of Quantities for the “Docking and Rehabilitation of M.V. Barima,” inviting tenders for the work. The document was stamped approved. Bids were solicited.

The scope of works named in that document is not routine maintenance. It identifies: 

  • Approximately 13,000 kg of deteriorated steel plating, frames, and internal walls requiring renewal across the hull and superstructure
  • Sea-chest valves, valve boxes, overboard strainers, and suction boxes in the engine room — the fittings that separate the hull from open sea — requiring examination and servicing
  • Steering ram seals and rudder stock requiring examination and repair
  • Port and starboard propeller shafts and stern tube requiring removal, examination, and replacement where necessary
  • Two new main-engine turbochargers
  • Ultrasonic gauging of the hull, with a detailed thickness test report — a diagnostic step ordered specifically when corrosion is suspected to have progressed far enough to threaten structural integrity
  • A replacement tarpaulin hatch cover for the cargo hold, and repair of hatch beams already documented as wasted

This is a vessel the Ministry’s own engineers had assessed as requiring substantial structural rehabilitation before it sailed with passengers again.

The Contradiction

A Bill of Quantities is not, on its face, a certificate declaring a vessel unfit — and Edghill’s statement was precise enough to exploit that distinction. But a tender document identifying critical, safety-relevant defects in a vessel’s hull, sea valves, and steering system is a form of institutional knowledge the Minister’s public framing did not disclose. The public was told the vessel had been “kept intact.” The Ministry’s own record, four months old, said otherwise.

A most fortunate group rescued by local fisherfolks

When asked to account for the vessel’s condition, Edghill pointed to a dry-docking in 2024 — a year before this tender was issued. He did not produce a completion record, an award notice, or a post-rehabilitation certification dated any time after March 2026. In the absence of such a document, citing an earlier dry-docking does not answer the question the tender itself raises: what happened to the work the Ministry said, in writing, needed to be done?

What Remains Unknown — And What the Ministry Must Now Answer

This news media is not asserting that the tendered work was never performed. That is one possibility among several, and the record does not yet settle it. The Ministry now owes the public clear answers to each of the following:

  1. Was the March 2026 tender ever awarded? If so, to whom, and when?
  2. If awarded, was the rehabilitation completed before the MV Barima returned to passenger service? Is there a dry-dock completion certificate or classification survey dated after the tender?
  3. If the work was not completed, on what basis did the vessel continue operating on a route serving Guyana’s northwest region?
  4. Was the ultrasonic hull-gauging report — specifically called for in the tender — ever produced? If it exists, the Ministry should release it immediately; it would settle directly whether hull thinning was a factor in the loss of stability.
  5. Why did the Minister’s public accounting of the vessel’s condition reference a 2024  dry-docking rather than the March 2026 tender that his own Ministry issued.

These are not rhetorical questions. They are the minimum disclosure the families still waiting for news of the missing, and the wider Guyanese public, are owed — not weeks from now, after an inquiry reports, but this week, while the paper trail is fresh and before any account of what happened has hardened into an official version nobody can verify.

The 592 Guardian will continue to report on this matter as records become available. The Ministry’s own tender document is a matter of public record; the Guardian is prepared to publish it in full alongside any response the Ministry wishes to provide.

— The Board

Barima Was Not Just a Tragedy — It Was a Warning Ignored

/0 Comments/in , , /by

THE 592 GUARDIAN ♦ EDITORIAL ♦ ACCOUNTABILITY & GOVERNANCE

Barima Was Not Just a Tragedy — It Was a Warning Ignored

A commissioned replacement vessel was unavailable, an ageing ferry remained in service, and the warning signs were already in the state’s own records.

The MV Barima did not capsize in a vacuum. It capsized inside a system that had already been warning, in plain sight, that it was being run on exhaustion, improvisation, and neglect.

The tragedy off Guyana’s coast was not merely a night of catastrophe at sea; it was the culmination of policy failures that began long before the vessel left port.

When the government commissioned the MV Ma Lisha in 2023, it sold the vessel as a modern answer to an old problem. The promise was straightforward enough: replace ageing ferries, strengthen safety, and improve the Region One route. The vessel was presented as the ship that would end dependency on worn-out craft and bring some measure of reliability to a service that had long been abused by age and inefficiency. That was the public pitch.

But the reality that emerged in 2026 tells a more troubling story. Procurement records and public reports indicate that the MV Ma Lisha itself required substantial rehabilitation works, with an engineer’s estimate of roughly G$199.3 million. That is not a minor maintenance note. It is a staggering admission for a vessel that had been purchased at a cost of about US$12.7 million and held out as a new solution just three years earlier.

Fortunately rescued by Fishermen in the area

And then there is the MV Barima. The vessel that ultimately capsized was not a modern replacement held together by wishful thinking. It was an ageing ferry, 87 years old, and by any honest measure it belonged to another era. Yet it remained in operation on one of the most demanding maritime routes in the country, even as reports placed major rehabilitation needs on the vessel, including critical work to hull plating, propulsion, steering, structural frames, and cargo hatch components.

 

 

 

That fact alone should alarm every citizen. A vessel with documented structural and mechanical needs was still carrying passengers. A replacement vessel was reportedly unavailable. And instead of a durable backup plan, the public was left with a maritime service that appears to have been managed by drift, not discipline. If this is not a textbook failure of oversight, then the term has lost all meaning.

The central question is not difficult to state. If the MV Ma Lisha was commissioned to replace the Barima, why was it not available when passengers needed it? And if the Barima was already in need of major rehabilitation, who made the decision that it remained fit enough to continue transporting human beings across Atlantic waters? Those are not rhetorical flourishes. They are the basic questions that should be guiding a serious public inquiry.

These are the unsavory conditions people are subjected to.

The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot boast of a new ferry fleet while the supposed replacement vessel is offline. It cannot present maintenance deficiencies as routine while people are still being loaded onto an elderly vessel whose condition had already triggered rehabilitation planning. And it certainly cannot expect the public to accept the idea that a tragedy of this scale was unforeseeable when the warning signs were sitting inside the state’s own records.

This is where the argument moves beyond crew error. Crew conduct, passenger manifests, overloading, and the decisions made on the night of the disaster must all be examined. But they are only part of the story. They explain the final minutes. They do not explain the conditions that produced those minutes. They do not explain why the route was left exposed to such a fragile arrangement in the first place.

A vessel does not suddenly become unsafe on the night it sinks. Safety is eroded over time — by delayed repairs, weak supervision, ignored warnings, inadequate contingency planning, and a political culture that treats maritime transport as something that can be patched together until disaster forces attention. That is why this cannot be written off as a tragic accident alone. It must be treated as a governance failure.

The public deserves answers on a number of fronts.

⇒ How long had the MV Ma Lisha been out of service?

⇒ What repairs were required, and why were they necessary so soon after commissioning?

⇒ What contingency arrangement existed when the replacement vessel became unavailable?

⇒ Who authorized the continued operation of the MV Barima despite the rehabilitation needs identified for it?

⇒ Were formal risk assessments done? If they were, were the warnings ignored? If they were not, why not?

These are not peripheral questions. They go to the heart of whether Guyana’s ferry system was being responsibly managed or casually exposed to known danger.

 A state that spends millions on a replacement vessel but leaves both the old ship and the new one vulnerable to breakdown is not running a transport system. It is gambling with lives.

The deaths, injuries, and anguish that followed the capsizing of the MV Barima must therefore be understood in full. Yes, the final voyage matters. Yes, the manifest matters. Yes, the crew’s actions matter. But so does the chain of decisions that made this voyage possible at all. That chain begins with procurement, maintenance, oversight, and political responsibility. It ends with human beings in the water.

And that is the bitter truth the authorities must confront. The MV Barima tragedy was not simply the story of one vessel going down. It was the exposure of a broken ferry regime in which age, neglect, and administrative failure were allowed to coexist until the sea delivered its own verdict.

The question now is whether those in charge will answer for it honestly, or whether they will try, once again, to drown accountability beneath the language of routine inquiry.

A MINISTRY THAT CANNOT COUNT ITS OWN NUMBERS WARNS THE NATION

/0 Comments/in , /by

 

THE 592 GUARDIAN ♦ EDITORIAL♦ ACCOUNTABILITY & GOVERNANCE

A MINISTRY THAT CANNOT COUNT ITS OWN NUMBERS WARNS THE NATION AGAINST.MISINFORMATION

Sub-head: The Home Affairs Ministry’s Monday statement policed the public’s grief. It said nothing about the government’s own shifting account of the MV Barima disaster.

By The Board ♦ July 2026

On Monday, with 83 Guyanese still unaccounted for beneath the Essequibo tide and 27 bodies recovered from a vessel that should never have needed rescuing, the Ministry of Home Affairs found the moment fit for a warning — not to the officials whose licensing, staffing and manifest failures are now the subject of a criminal-grade investigation, but to the public.

Govt release of the approximate location . Oddly no GPS Location.

Anyone who shares an old video and misattributes it to the MV Barima, the ministry cautioned, “may be committing offences under the laws of Guyana.” Public mischief. The full force of the law.

There is a category of public statement that performs concern for the grieving while quietly re-organising the incentives of a crisis. Monday’s release belongs to it.

Nowhere in the ministry’s appeal for “compassion, truth and national solidarity” is there an acknowledgment that the government’s own account of what happened Saturday night has moved by the hour — nor that some of that movement has been forced, not volunteered.

A SHIFTING OFFICIAL RECORD

Consider the sequence. Public Works Minister Juan Edghill spent Sunday publicly rejecting suggestions that the ferry was overloaded, insisting the vessel carried 268 tonnes of cargo against a licensed capacity of over 1,000, and 116 passengers against a certified capacity of 397.

Separately, government figures put 133 people aboard at departure. By Monday, the Prime Minister’s office was disclosing that the captain and first engineer had tested positive for cannabis, and that the passenger manifest itself did not match the number of people pulled from the water — dozens of survivors, officials conceded, were never recorded on the ship’s books at all. A digital ferry-pass system meant to prevent exactly this kind of discrepancy was, the Transport and Harbours Department chairperson acknowledged, still reliant on manual entry at certain checkpoints.

None of that is misinformation. It is the government’s own disclosure, extracted across three days of press briefings, each one correcting or complicating the one before it.

If precision matters — and in a tragedy of this scale it should matter more than anywhere else — the ministry might have opened Monday’s statement by explaining why the public was told the vessel was operating “well within capacity” before anyone had established whether the passenger count used for that claim was itself reliable.

MISINFORMATION POLICING THAT STARTS IN THE WRONG DIRECTION

We do not dispute that old, unrelated footage circulating as MV Barima wreckage is a real problem, or that it compounds the cruelty already inflicted on families waiting by the Essequibo Technical Institute for news of the missing. A ministry warning citizens against that specific conduct, and directing genuine evidence toward the Guyana Police Force, is doing its job. That much of Monday’s statement earns no argument from this desk.

What earns the argument is the framing that follows it — the leap from “do not circulate fabricated video” to a blanket threat of prosecution for “false or misleading content purporting to depict or relate to this tragedy,” issued by the same ministry whose colleagues spent the preceding 48 hours revising the casualty count, the passenger count and the seaworthiness record in real time.

Public mischief statutes exist to punish deliberate falsehood, not to discipline a public that has watched official numbers move and is entitled to ask why.

Guyana’s Human Rights Association made a version of this point on Sunday, warning that political actors on every side risk exploiting the tragedy and calling for reliance on verified official updates. That is a fair standard — but it is a standard the government must hold itself to first.

A ministry cannot credibly demand that citizens “verify information before sharing it” while its own verification process is still catching up to its own press conferences.

WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY ACTUALLY REQUIRES

The families of the 83 still missing are not owed a lecture on public mischief law.

They are owed a dry-docking record that explains:

• Why a vessel scheduled for maintenance was still in commercial service

• A manifest reconciliation that explains how survivors went uncounted

• And a chain of command that explains who cleared the MV Barima to sail with a captain and first engineer who, we now know, tested positive for cannabis.

Those are the facts capable of actually misleading the public if withheld or mismanaged — not a recycled video on WhatsApp.

The Guyana Police Force investigation the ministry rightly champions should be free to work without interference. But the request for public cooperation would carry more weight paired with a public commitment that the government’s own findings — inspection reports, procurement records, the full manifest reconciliation — will be released in full, not filtered through the same press-conference-by-press-conference disclosure that has defined the government’s account so far.

Grief does not require the public to stop asking questions. It requires the institutions responsible for 179 lives at sea to answer them faster than they have.

— The Board

Resign or Remove -Leading to What?

/0 Comments/in , /by

 THE 592 GUARDIAN ♦ ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM FOR GUYANA

Resign or Remove -Leading to What?

OPINION BY: GHK LALL 

Calls fly with increasing speed for heads to roll.  Officials must fall for the MV Barima tragedy.  More for the misinformation disseminated.  Less for the losses.  Whether resignation or removal, what difference does it make?  Where’s the positive for the Guyanese people?  They need truth and justice.  Not roping in the MV Barima fallout and continuing with obscuring.  The past is the best teacher.

A senior public servant was sent into the shadows by the PPP Govt.  Who won, who lost?  Certainly, it wasn’t the senior public servant, who may have had wings clipped publicly, but is now a bigger bird.  Another public official, also of considerable rank, was allowed to resign, only for a greater accumulation of power to occur.  This is a true-and-tried PPP tactic that cleverly retreats in the face of advancing public anger, only for the maneuvers at which the party is so skilled to takeover. 

When a man or a woman in the PPP Govt that has erred egregiously is reluctantly withdrawn from the public space, they don’t disappear from the scene.  There’s always a Congress waiting to welcome them, to garland them with more honors.  Hence, what purpose resignation or removal?  A charade in the past for temporary public appeasement, then a rebound later.  Often in the open, and with a finger wagged in the face.  See!  This is the PPP Way.  How it’s done!

As much as Guyanese call for heads to roll, and as much as I endorse, environmental and political reality intrudes into the picture. 

Force one to resign and the majority in the PPP Govt family would have to be sent packing.  Fire one, and many more have to be fired.  This is how one State agency after another has deteriorated and disintegrated.  One resigns or is terminated, and the whole damn governance structure could collapse under it accumulated weights. 

Incompetence pronounced.  Inefficiency extensive.  Corruption – the national political culture.  One aspect is of executives converted to envoys.  The MV Barima cannot be the tip of iceberg.  It’s underwater.  The MV Barima is an indication of the widespread nature of a killer virus, the crippled condition in which Guyana is left.

What’s the remedy?  Guyanese need leaders, ministers, and senior public officials to possess some minimum honesty.  Some decency helps, with class seen and noted.  If there could only be a little self-respect in the corridors of power, it may inspire some authentic respect for the people.  Not some superficial, hypocritical statement cobbled together in the midst of a tragedy (and a mystery absentee) for the sake of putting any something before the nation.  Callout one minister, or push out another, and be ready for the replacement who is likely to be cut from the same cloth as the ousted, maybe even worse.  If that could be contemplated.

Simple people don’t know much about these matters related to resignations and removals.  Humble families are at a loss on how to cope in the terrors and torments of their newly arrived grievous circumstances.  The badly buffeted need to be comforted.  The hollowed out (multiple family members lost) shrink from the thought of how they themselves are going to survive.

Belatedly creeping forward from under the ashes of the MV Barima’s descent to the depth is Excellency Ali.  A ‘full, thorough, and independent investigation’ has been committed to publicly.  If only I could lean on that, run with it.  Guyanese have heard that before. 

To remind: helicopter crash that killed five soldiers; Mahdia Dorm conflagration that incinerated 20 youths.  What the people of Guyana were handed was a PPP Govt style and an Ali standard of ‘full, thorough, and independent investigation’ in both instances.  One cannot be allowed in the daylight (crash report); the other was such a farce that it insulted the living and the dead.

There was a method at work before.  The wheels are already in motion.  Say the right things.  Wait for time to pass.  Give room for memory and interest and passions to fade.  Present an investigation that is a con game.  Then, return to PPP Govt paradise, smug in the satisfaction of another snow job pulled (or dumped) on lost or uncaring Guyanese.

 

 

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY DR. MOHAMED IRFAAN ALI, PRESIDENT OF THE CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA

/1 Comment/in , , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN.ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM

AN OPEN LETTER TO HIS EXCELLENCY DR. MOHAMED IRFAAN ALI, PRESIDENT OF THE CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA

Mr. President,

The sinking of the MV Barima is, I believe, the worst maritime tragedy in our country’s history. Families have been devastated. Parents have lost children. Children have lost parents. Scores of ordinary Guyanese have perished. Survivors have endured unimaginable trauma. Every Guyanese shares their grief and extends heartfelt sympathy to all whose lives have been changed forever.

In times of grief, the nation expects leadership. In the hours immediately following the tragedy, Guyanese looked to the Government for clear information, decisive action and reassurance that every available resource had been mobilised. Instead, there was uncertainty, confusion, conflicting reports and official statements that raised as many questions as they answered. Attention appeared to shift too quickly from discovering what had happened to defending official action. That only added to the tragedy.

In any national disaster, Government’s first obligation is to activate a machinery capable of minimising further loss of life and damage to property, coordinating rescue efforts, providing timely and accurate information to anxious relatives – including through a dedicated hotline – and ensuring that the public receives information that is accurate, consistent and credible. Only then can Government turn to the equally important task of establishing the truth.

That is precisely why Parliament enacted the Guyana Shipping Act, 1998. It recognised that when lives are lost in rivers or at sea, the search for truth cannot be left to official assurances or political debate. The Act itself is an elaborate piece of legislation establishing a statutory framework governing maritime safety, regulation and the independent investigation of marine casualties. It also separated the operation of vessels from their regulation by establishing the Maritime Administration as the country’s maritime regulator. My cursory reading of the Act is that it has been systematically ignored in practice. But that is a matter for another forum. 

As the nation comes to terms with the scale of this tragedy, disturbing questions arise.  

• Was the Barima properly maintained and operated by the Transport and Harbours Department?

• Had the Maritime Administration discharged its statutory responsibility to regulate and oversee the vessel’s safety to protect lives and limbs of passengers and crew?

• Were the vessel’s inspections, surveys and certificates current and fully compliant with the law?

• Had the Maritime Administration identified any deficiencies and, if so, what corrective action was required and taken?

• Did the Transport and Harbours Department comply with every statutory requirement governing passenger safety?

• How did the Minister, who bears responsibility for both the operator and the regulator, satisfy himself that each had properly discharged its separate statutory responsibilities?

• Did failures of operation, regulation, supervision or enforcement contribute to this disaster?

• Does this concentration of responsibility within a single ministry compromise the independence of the regulatory process?

I ask you not to regard these as political questions. They are legal and factual questions, and we deserve and expect honest and factual answers.

The purpose of an independent investigation is not to assign blame before the evidence is heard. It is to ensure that the evidence is gathered independently, examined objectively and reported publicly. That is how confidence is built. It is also how future tragedies are prevented.

Mr. President, public confidence does not exist in a vacuum. Many Guyanese still carry unanswered questions from previous national tragedies, including the Mahdia Dormitory Fire which cost the lives of twenty of our children. There is a widespread perception that official investigations too often fail to satisfy the reasonable expectation that every relevant fact will be exposed and every lesson learnt. Against that background, the handling of the Barima tragedy assumes even greater significance.

There is another matter that deserves urgent attention.

Our maritime legislation still contains penalties that belong to another era. Conduct capable of exposing passengers to grave danger attracts fines that are derisory by modern standards. In an era when Guyana has become one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, such penalties neither deter misconduct nor reflect the value that our society places upon human life.  That is a matter for Parliament to correct.

But where statutory penalties are inadequate, the responsibility of the State becomes correspondingly greater. The families of those who perished are entitled not merely to sympathy but to justice. If regulatory failures contributed to this tragedy, legal accountability cannot end with outdated fines imposed upon individuals. It must extend, where the law and the evidence justify it, to the public authorities charged with protecting those who entrusted their lives to the nation’s transport system.

Mr. President, the Barima must not be allowed to become another national tragedy remembered only for grief and unanswered questions. It should be remembered as the moment when your Administration demonstrated, by action rather than words, that in Guyana the rule of law is stronger than official convenience, party interest and the protection of personalities. The families of the victims deserve the truth. The people of Guyana deserve accountability. History will remember whether your Administration chose official reassurance or independent scrutiny.

I therefore respectfully urge you to declare an appropriate period of national mourning in honour of those who lost their lives. Thereafter, and without delay, to establish an independent Commission of Inquiry under the Guyana Shipping Act, 1998, and to allow it to discharge its mandate completely independently, free from interference or influence of any kind. 

That, I believe, is the surest way to honour the dead, comfort the bereaved and restore public confidence in the administration of justice.

Respectfully,

Christopher Ram

July 21-2026