Truth Cannot Be Selective

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

Truth Cannot Be Selective

As a journalist who has built this platform on accountability, integrity, and the duty to hold power to account; regardless of whose story is being told—I believe it is necessary to intervene in this latest tit-for-tat between competing political factions. I was present at the event in question, not as an advocate for any party, but to observe and report fairly, accurately, and in the public interest. Too often, Guyanese are being misled by politically driven social-media narratives, selective footage, exaggerated claims, and partisan interpretations of events. The public should not become collateral damage in a contest for political advantage. There is an old saying: when elephants fight, it is the grass  that suffer . In this case, ordinary Guyanese; the people seeking facts, accountability, and trustworthy leadership—are the ones most harmed when truth is sacrificed for propaganda. This intervention is therefore intended to set the record straight about what actually occurred.

There is a basic standard that every political party seeking public office must meet: tell the truth about what the public can plainly see.

WIN is entitled to organize, protest, criticize the Government, challenge President Irfaan Ali, and raise serious questions about corruption, public spending, the MV Barima, public services, accountability, and the administration of justice. Those questions are not only legitimate; they are necessary in any functioning democracy.

But the right to criticize does not include the right to manufacture a version of events that contradicts the evidence.

Thursday night’s presidential outreach in Queens was, by any fair reading, among the strongest diaspora events held by a Guyanese President in recent years. The room had an FDNY capacity of approximately 350 persons. It was full. People were left outside because the venue could not legally accommodate everyone who wanted to enter. Others left after waiting for an event that started later than planned. Those departures should not be falsely repackaged as proof that there was no support for President Ali.

The President’s late arrival is fair ground for criticism. People gave their time, travelled across New York and beyond, and deserved a prompt start. But it is intellectually dishonest to use the delay to deny the obvious: there was overwhelming interest in the event, a packed venue, and a significant crowd outside.

A Small Protest Is Still Legitimate

The protest was lawful and legitimate. Every Guyanese has the right to raise a placard, ask questions, criticize a political leader, and demand accountability.

But a protest involving fewer than approximately 20 people cannot credibly be presented as the defining story of a gathering that drew an estimated 2,000+ people over the course of the evening. Nor is there credible basis to claim that a small group of protesters caused a delay of nearly two hours or that the President was somehow afraid of them.

The question is not whether the protest should have happened. It had been permitted, respected, and covered. The question is whether its size and political significance were honestly represented. They were not.

A political party weakens its own moral argument when it condemns the Government for spin, concealment, and manipulation while using the same methods in its own public messaging

The Chapter-Launch Precedent

This is not an isolated concern. At WIN’s recent New York chapter launch, there were public claims portraying the occasion as a “sold-out” or historic gathering. Those claims were challenged by the 592 Guardian, which reported that the attendance had been overstated. The public challenge drew an immediate response, but the misinformation was still circulated through several media outlets.

The exact attendance figure is less important than the wider lesson: political organizations should not confuse ambition with evidence.

A young party has a right to celebrate modest beginnings. There is no shame in starting small. Every consequential movement begins with a handful of committed people, builds trust, develops policy, recruits credible leaders, and earns support through consistent work.

The problem arises when a party tries to create momentum by misrepresenting it. Inflated attendance, exaggerated claims of political impact, and selective descriptions of public events may create a brief social-media impression. But they eventually damage the organization’s credibility—especially among people who were present and know exactly what occurred.

A Mandate Is an Exchange of Trust

When a party asks citizens for a mandate, it is asking them to make an exchange of trust.

Voters are effectively saying: We will give you authority over public money, laws, institutions, national assets, and the direction of the country because we believe you will act honestly and responsibly. That trust cannot be demanded while truth is treated as optional.

A party cannot call for transparency while obscuring basic facts. It cannot condemn alleged Government deception while engaging in exaggeration and misinformation. It cannot demand that public officials meet high ethical standards while excusing those standards within its own ranks.

That is not principled opposition. It is duplicity.

Several early WIN supporters have reportedly become disillusioned and stepped away. Their concern is not that the party criticizes the Government; Guyana needs vigorous criticism, organized civic pressure, and a credible opposition. Their concern is that the party may be repeating the same political habits it claims to oppose.

That is a warning WIN should take seriously.

Opposition Must Be Credible

Guyana needs a vibrant opposition. It needs political organizations that can examine contracts, challenge questionable spending, demand answers over allegations of corruption, defend citizens who face discrimination or abuse, and put forward workable alternatives.

But an opposition cannot acquire credibility merely by being loud, confrontational, or anti-government. It earns credibility through facts, discipline, policy, internal democracy, ethical conduct, and the courage to correct itself publicly.

 If WIN expects to be regarded as a government-in-waiting, it must embrace a basic principle of leadership: tell the truth even when the truth is inconvenient. If it wants to be taken seriously as a party capable of governing, it must hold itself to the same moral and ethical standards it demands from the PPP-C Government.

Political credibility cannot be built by dismissing large crowds as staged, minimizing public enthusiasm, or transforming a small protest into a national awakening.

That means:

♦  Correct exaggerated claims when they are identified.

♦  Distinguish opinions from verified facts.

♦ Acknowledge the scale of events honestly, whether the crowd is 20, 350, or 2,000+

♦ Stop treating every disagreement as proof of conspiracy or political persecution.

♦ Welcome hard questions about its own leadership, financing, structure, conduct, and public statements.

♦ Build support through credible policies and sustained community work rather than manufactured narratives.

The Record Must Be Honest

Thursday night’s event was not proof that the PPP has no problems, nor was it proof that every Guyanese in New York supports President Ali. It did, however, demonstrate that he retains considerable support and political appeal within the diaspora.

The meeting was sold out. The venue reached its permitted capacity. Many people were unable to enter. There was visible enthusiasm among attendees. There was also criticism, questioning, frustration over the late start, and concern over unresolved national issues.

That is the honest account.

For an observer who has consistently scrutinized the PPP Government and held its feet to the fire, the level of support seen at the event may be surprising. But journalism is not about reporting only what confirms one’s expectations or political preferences. It is about recording what happened.

And what happened in Queens was that President Irfaan Ali drew one of the strongest diaspora crowds seen at a presidential outreach event in years—while WIN mounted a small but legitimate protest that should neither be demonized nor exaggerated.

This intervention is not an endorsement of the PPP-C nor an indictment of WIN. Its an honest assesment of the facts.  The Government must continue to answer for matters that concern Guyanese: allegations of corruption, public procurement, debt, cost of living, the MV Barima, infrastructure delivery, health care, water, electricity, public safety, institutional independence, and equal opportunity.

No government should be insulated from scrutiny.

But neither should an opposition party be exempt from the standards it insists everyone else must meet. The first obligation of anyone asking to lead Guyana is honesty with the Guyanese people. A party that distorts the size of its own events and minimizes crowds it does not like is not merely engaging in political spin. It risks betraying the public trust before it has even earned the opportunity to govern.

Guyana deserves better than political deception dressed up as change.

The Owner in the Dock: Who the Barima Committal Actually Implicates

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

The Owner in the Dock: Who the Barima Committal Actually Implicates

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar September 2026 

On September 9, 2026, Captain Kevin Price, Chief Mate Rondell Roberts, and Goods Superintendent Delon Granderson appeared virtually before Magistrate Ravindra Mohabir at the Charity Magistrate’s Court and were further remanded to prison. Prosecutors confirmed the evidence in the case has now been fully disclosed to the defence. Statements, if the defence elects to file them, are due October 19. Paper committal proceedings begin November 16.

It is tempting to read remand alongside full disclosure as a verdict already reached — proof the State believes it has the men who caused the deaths of 73 people. That reading gets the law wrong. Disclosure is a procedural threshold, not an evidentiary judgment; remand at this stage reflects the gravity of a murder charge, not a magistrate’s assessment of guilt. Committal, when it comes, is the first point at which sufficiency of evidence is actually tested. Nothing in Tuesday’s hearing settles that question, and this Board will not pretend otherwise.

But the premise does not need to be sound for the underlying accountability question to be. Strip the guilt-by-remand logic away and a harder, cleaner question remains: at the moment the State alleges these three men committed a crime rather than presided over an accident, all three were in the employ of the State. What follows from that — for the employer, not merely the employed?

TWO TRACKS, DELIBERATELY CONFUSED

The prosecution of Price, Roberts, and Granderson runs on one track: individual criminal responsibility, tested by evidence, decided by a court. Nothing this Board has published disputes the State’s right to bring that case or the DPP’s authority to advise it forward.

The second track — institutional and civil liability of the State as owner, employer, and regulator of the vessel — runs independently. It does not require a conviction. It does not require an acquittal. It does not require the murder theory to survive committal at all. It rests on a distinct and already well-documented set of facts this Board has been assembling since August: a defect-report paper trail spanning November 2025 to March 2026, urgent-marked mechanical and electrical failures acknowledged by the Shore Chief Engineer and left unresolved for months, and — most consequentially — a statutory framework that this Board has argued makes the State’s culpability a matter of law, not inference.

If the State charges its own employees with murder for what happened aboard a vessel it owned, regulated, and inspected, the charge sheet indicts the crew. It does not acquit the owner.

WHAT MILLINGTON ALREADY ESTABLISHED

Maritime scholar Robert C. Millington’s paper, “MV Barima and the Maritime Statute Book of Guyana,” reported by Kaieteur News, is not a moral argument for state responsibility. It is a legal one, built on the statute book itself, and this Board has covered its findings in detail. Two of them bear directly on the question raised by Tuesday’s hearing.

First: Section 3(3) of the Guyana Shipping Act deems MARAD’s Director the legal owner of state-registered vessels. This is not a metaphor for government responsibility — it is the positive law. The State is not merely the Transport and Harbours Department’s political overseer or Price, Roberts, and Granderson’s employer in the ordinary sense. Under Guyana’s own statute, the State is the vessel’s owner of record. Whatever duty of seaworthiness, maintenance, and safe operation the law imposes on a vessel owner, Section 3(3) places that duty on the State directly — not once removed through an employment relationship, but as the named legal owner.

Second: the “24-Metre Gap.” Regulation 5 of 2005’s stability and safety rules apply only to vessels under 24 metres; Regulation 6 of 2005’s cargo-ship rules explicitly exclude passenger ships. At approximately 40.26 metres, the Barima fell outside both regimes — subject to fewer statutory safety obligations than a small wooden vessel or a standard cargo ship. This was not a gap the crew created or could have closed. It was a legislative choice, unaddressed for decades, that left a vessel carrying more than 170 passengers with a lighter statutory safety burden than boats a fraction of its size.

Millington’s paper adds further structural findings this Board has previously detailed: no statutory pre-departure headcount or passenger-log duty, unlike SOLAS Chapter III Regulation 27; a casualty-inquiry regime Millington describes as non-functional, with the 1883 Act excluding State vessels from its reach entirely; and a penalty structure that fines submerging a load line more heavily than sending an unseaworthy vessel to sea. None of these are failures of individual seamanship. They are failures of the statute book; authored, and left unrepaired, by the State.

THE PAPER TRAIL THE DEFENCE NOW HOLDS

The prosecution’s disclosure this week means Price, Roberts, and Granderson’s lawyers now hold whatever evidentiary record the State has assembled against them. This Board has already published, independently, a documentary record the CoI itself has not yet accounted for in public: handwritten defect and repair reports dating from November 2025 through March 2026, several marked urgent, several acknowledged in writing by the Shore Chief Engineer days or weeks after they were filed, describing a generator out of service, a main-engine heat exchanger running 20 degrees above a comparison engine, a leaking exhaust venting into the engine room, and — as late as March 9, 2026, four months before the sinking — a captain’s own correspondence listing a leaking hatch pipe, a broken passenger toilet, and a damaged wheelhouse window still awaiting repair.

If the prosecution’s case rests in any part on the condition of the vessel that night, the defense now has standing to ask a question this Board has been asking since August: who received these reports, who had authority to fund and order the repairs, and why urgent-marked defects went unresolved for months under a chain of command that ran through MARAD and the Transport and Harbours Department — not through the bridge.

WHAT THIS BOARD IS NOT ARGUING

This is not an argument that Price, Roberts, or Granderson are innocent, nor that they are guilty. That determination belongs to the committal process beginning November 16 and, if the matter proceeds, to trial. This Board takes no position on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence, which it has not seen.

It is an argument that the criminal case and the question of State liability are not substitutes for one another, and that the government’s silence on the second while it prosecutes the first is itself worth scrutiny. A State that names its Director of Maritime Administration the statutory owner of a vessel, staffs and regulates that vessel’s operation, receives urgent defect reports across eight months without resolving them, and then charges three of its own employees with murder for the vessel’s sinking, has not thereby discharged its own exposure. It has, if anything, sharpened the question of why the charge sheet stops where it does.

A STANDING DEMAND

This Board renews and consolidates its formal calls on this point:

That the Attorney General’s Chambers state on the public record whether the State, MARAD, or any official above the rank of the three currently charged is or has been under investigation in connection with the disaster.

That the Commission of Inquiry, whose mandate this Board has confirmed explicitly includes institutional failures, be asked directly whether it is examining Section 3(3) ownership liability and the 24-Metre Gap as causes, not merely as regulatory background.

That government clarify whether any civil claim against the State by victims’ families is being treated as foreclosed, deferred, or actively contemplated — and, per this Board’s prior reporting on the Transport and Harbors Act’s Section 23 limitation period, that the six-month clock said to run toward a January 2027 bar be suspended pending the CoI’s conclusions.

The men in the dock on September 9 answer for what the State alleges they did. The State has yet to answer for what its own statute book says it already was: the owner of the vessel that sank.

— The Board

 

 

The Number Guyana Has Already Reached Once

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

The Number Guyana Has Already Reached Once

PART II OF A TWO-PART SERIES  OPINION BY: Hem Kumar September 2026

The 44-Seat Threshold, the 2031 Clock, and the Defection Ledger

Part I of this series established the mechanism: in every one of the thirty-six countries, Washington-based advocates—Freedom House documented as having evaded presidential term limits, the rule change followed a legislative supermajority, not the reverse. This piece narrows that global record to a single number and a single domestic fact this Board has not seen stated plainly elsewhere: Guyana has already amended Article 90 once. Unanimously. Under the exact procedure — Article 164(2)(b), a two-thirds vote of all elected members — that would govern any future attempt to touch it again.

That is not a hypothetical parallel to Cameroon or Togo. It is Guyana’s own constitutional history, on Guyana’s own books, using Guyana’s own Article 90.

Chart of Leaders who are serving two-terms

WHAT ARTICLE 164 ACTUALLY REQUIRES

Guyana’s Constitution is not undefended against amendment — it is layered. Article 164(1) allows ordinary constitutional alterations by simple Assembly majority. Article 164(2)(a) protects a narrow set of foundational provisions; including Article 164 itself — behind a two-thirds vote plus a national referendum. But Article 164(2)(b) — the tier that governs Article 90, the presidential term-limit provision, along with roughly seventy other articles; requires only a two-thirds vote of all elected members of the National Assembly. No referendum. No public vote. Just forty-four votes, correctly counted, on a single sitting day.

Guyana has been here before. In 2000, the National Assembly passed the Constitution (Amendment) (No. 4) Act, which altered Article 90 to introduce the two-term presidential limit itself, alongside ten other articles governing presidential power. It did not pass on a bare two-thirds threshold. It passed unanimously — every member of an Assembly then split between PPP-C and PNC-led opposition, agreeing that the article should be changed. The Caribbean Court of Justice’s 2018 ruling upholding that amendment noted specifically that the Act reflected what it called compliance with a widespread community demand, and that it was passed under the Article 164(2)(b) tier of entrenchment, not the deeper referendum tier.

What made the 2000 amendment legitimate was not merely that it cleared 44 votes — it was that it cleared them unanimously.

Two things follow from this precedent, and this analyst wants both stated with equal weight. First: Article 90 is not, as it is sometimes loosely described, an immovable constitutional bedrock. It has been altered once already, lawfully, at the exact threshold now relevant to any future move. Second: what made the 2000 amendment legitimate was not merely that it cleared 44 votes — it was that it cleared them unanimously, across the aisle, in response to a public consensus. A future alteration to the same article, cleared at exactly 44 and not a vote more, secured through defection rather than cross-party agreement, would satisfy the same constitutional text while inverting everything about the process that gave the 2000 amendment its legitimacy. The Constitution does not distinguish between those two paths. Only the public record does.

THE LEDGER, COUNTED HONESTLY

This Board’s earlier piece, “The Carrot and the Count,” documented a pattern of PPP-C absorption of PNCR-APNU-aligned figures through 2026: James Bond, Shurwayne Holder, Daniel Seeram, Samuel Sandy, Wayne Maison, and, in the defection formalized on May 12, 2026, former MPs Ricky Ramsaroop and Dinesh Jaiprashad alongside regional councillors Ravoldo Birbal, Sheik Yaseen, Prince Holder, and Gangadai Lloyd. APNU General Secretary Sherwin Benjamin dismissed the move as “personal aggrandizement.” Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton called it unsurprising, attributing it to unfilled ambition rather than mass sentiment.

Precision matters here, and this Board corrects its own framing where the record demands it: as of this writing, the PPP-C government holds 36 of 65 Assembly seats — the same 36 it won in the September 2025 election. The May 2026 defections did not move that number. Guyana’s closed-list proportional representation system does not permit a sitting Assembly member to carry their seat across party lines; the defectors named above are former MPs and regional councillors, not sitting members of the current, 13th Parliament. The Assembly’s arithmetic, as of September 2026, remains 36 government, 29 opposition (WIN 16, PNCR-APNU 12, FGM 1) — eight seats short of 44.

That distinction is not a reason to relax. It is the reason to be exact about what the defection pattern actually is. It is not, today, a mechanism for moving Assembly numbers. It is a mechanism for pre-positioning ahead of the moment numbers can move — the 2031 general election, when Guyana’s closed-list system will next allocate all 65 seats fresh, and when a coalition’s list strength, not defections from a sitting Parliament, is what would put 44 seats within reach. Every figure absorbed into the PPP-C orbit between now and then is a figure who will appear on a PPP-C-aligned list, or decline to appear on an opposition one, when that list is drawn. The 2000 amendment took a unanimous Assembly to pass. The defection strategy this Board has documented since May reads, on the evidence available, as an effort to make a future amendment need no unanimity at all — only a list count that clears 44 on its own.

WHAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TRUE

The 592 Guardian is not asserting that a second alteration to Article 90 is planned, tabled, or under active discussion inside the PPP-C. No evidence supports that claim, and this publication will not manufacture urgency it cannot source. What can be stated, on the documentary record assembled across both parts of this series, is narrower and more defensible: the distance between Guyana’s current Assembly and the threshold that has, in thirty-six other countries, preceded a term-limit rewrite is eight seats; that threshold has already been used once in Guyana, on the same article, under the same procedural tier; and the defection pattern this Board has tracked since May 2026 is structurally the same activity — elite absorption ahead of a list-based seat count; that preceded Cameroon’s 2008 vote and Togo’s 2024 restructuring, each documented in Part I.

Freedom House’s report closed on a note this Board finds instructive: democracies survive this mechanism not through luck, but through institutions and citizens who name the arithmetic before it closes, not after. Senegal’s Constitutional Council stopped Macky Sall in 2024 because the threat was named and contested while it was still contestable.

Guyana’s Assembly stands at 36. The number that would end this discussion is 44. This Board intends to keep counting publicly, in the open, for as long as the gap between those two numbers continues to narrow.

— The Board

Sources: Cathryn Grothe and Grady Vaughan, “Overstaying Their Welcome: The Problem of Presidential Term Limit Evasion,” Freedom House; “A legal path to constitutional reform in Guyana,” Stabroek News (Sept. 28, 2024); “NO 3rd Term…CCJ rules upholds law that bars presidents serving more than two terms,” Guyana Chronicle (June 27, 2018); Constitution (Amendment) (No. 4) Act No. 17 of 2000; “Former APNU MPs, sitting councillors cross over to PPP,” Kaieteur News (May 13, 2026); National Assembly (Guyana), 13th Parliament composition.

UNITY IS NOT A GAG ORDER

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

 UNITY IS NOT A GAG ORDER

A response to “Crossfire,” Guyana Chronicle

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

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

WHAT THE COLUMN ASKS THE COUNTRY TO FORGET

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

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

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

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

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

THE FACTS CROSSFIRE DECLINES TO SIT WITH

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

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

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

WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY ACTUALLY REQUIRES

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

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

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

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

That is not crossfire. That is the job.

— The Board

A Grave of Convenience

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

 A Grave of Convenience

The Government Has Not Exhausted Every Option. It Has Exhausted Its Patience.

July,, 2026

Ten days. That is the distance between “we are sparing no effort” and “the vessel is likely to remain there as is.” Ten days between a President’s promise, published by his own Department of Public Information, and a Prime Minister’s public concession that the search has effectively ended. Somewhere in that span, without a vote in the National Assembly, without a published technical assessment, and without the Commission of Inquiry so much as convening, this administration decided that Guyana’s citizens — the majority of them Indigenous — would be left where they drowned.

Call it what it is. Not a memorial. An abandonment, dressed in the language of reverence.

THE SACRED WORD, USED CHEAPLY

Prime Minister Mark Phillips wants the nation to believe that turning the MV Barima wreck into a permanent sea grave is a gesture of respect for the dead. He should know better than most how quickly this government’s memorials evaporate once the cameras leave.      Three years ago, twenty children were killed in the Mahdia dormitory fire. The nation was told there would be a memorial. Three years later, there are wreaths laid once a year by the same minister now overseeing the Barima file, candlelight vigils that end at dusk, and families still fighting the State in court over settlement caps they say they were coerced into signing.

No memorial has been built. If this is what “sacred” gets you from this Government, the families of the Barima dead have every right to be afraid of the word.

A “Declaration of Agreement” was placed in front of grieving relatives on a Saturday, asking them to sign away the recovery of their own loved ones under the language of “concurrence” and “heartfelt wish.”

That is not consultation. That is a liability release wearing a eulogy’s clothes — and it was circulated before an independent Commission of Inquiry has been allowed anywhere near that hull.

ASK THE QUESTION NOBODY IN CABINET WANTS ASKED

Why the rush?

The wreck lies in relatively shallow, near-shore waters — not in the deep trenches where marine salvage genuinely reaches the outer limits of engineering. Guyana’s waters host, at this very moment, floating production platforms and heavy marine infrastructure operating in far more demanding conditions than a capsized, 87-year-old inshore ferry lying close to the coast. A nation with the capacity to help build and service some of the most technically demanding offshore infrastructure in the hemisphere is being asked to accept, within ten days of the sinking, that raising a far shallower, closer-to-shore vessel is beyond us.

That is not a credible technical judgment on its face. It is a political one, arrived at before the people whose job it is to investigate this disaster have been given the chance to do so.

 If the vessel is entombed now, on the government’s timeline, under the government’s own draft document, then any structural evidence bearing on why an 87-year-old ferry with 250 life jackets and functioning safety certification rolled over in open water goes down with it — permanently, and by administrative choice, not by nature’s.

WHAT “EVERY POSSIBLE AVENUE” ACTUALLY REQUIRES

The Government does not get to invoke President Ali’s promise that “every available asset is being deployed” and then, ten days later, quietly retire that promise through a Prime Minister’s aside to reporters outside the Assembly.

If every possible avenue has genuinely been exhausted, that finding belongs in a report — public, technical, signed, and defensible — not in a press gaggle. It belongs before the Commission of Inquiry, not before it.

And it belongs to Parliament, which has not been asked to debate this decision at all, despite having found time this same week to pass a $54.9 billion bill and observe one minute of silence for the very people it is now poised to leave on the seabed.

The families in Charity are not asking for miracles. They are asking that the country which found the money and the machinery to chase offshore oil into some of the deepest water on the continent find the will to bring their children, their parents, their spouses home from water a fraction of that depth. They are asking that “we will honour and respect their wishes” — the President’s own words — be tested against actual, hired, funded, and deployed international salvage capacity before the state declares the question closed.

Guyana is not a poor country anymore. It has not been a poor country for years. What it has, still, is a government that finds it easier to build a monument than to keep a promise.

The 592 Guardian calls on the Government of Guyana to:

  • Immediately publish the full technical assessment — engineering, hydrographic, and cost — underlying Prime Minister Phillips’s claim that the vessel cannot be raised, before any memorial declaration is finalized;
  • Suspend circulation and execution of the “Declaration of Agreement” until the Commission of Inquiry has physically inspected the wreck site;
  • Bring the salvage decision to a full debate and vote in the National Assembly, not leave it to a ministerial aside after a sitting;
  • Solicit and publish competing bids from international marine salvage firms with documented capability in comparable coastal wreck conditions, so families and the public can judge for themselves whether “every possible avenue” was truly exhausted;
  • Guarantee, in writing, that no memorial declaration will be finalized until every family of the missing has given informed, unpressured, individually witnessed consent — not consent gathered under a draft letter delivered on a Saturday with an implicit three-day clock attached.

The seabed is not sacred because the government calls it so on a Tuesday. It becomes a grave of convenience the moment a nation stops trying before it has to.

— The Board

The Wreck, the Words, and the Questions- MV Barima

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

 The Wreck, the Words, and the Questions– MV Barima

The country is being asked to absorb two messages that do not sit comfortably together.

On one hand, the President told the nation, in the immediate aftermath of the MV Barima disaster, that the state was sparing no effort, that every available asset would be deployed, and that the recovery mission would continue until every possible avenue had been exhausted. On the other hand, the Prime Minister has now signaled that the vessel is likely to remain where it lies, that bringing in more divers will not change the situation, and that the sunken wreck may simply be left on the seabed. Those are not minor differences in tone. They are two very different political and moral positions.

That contrast matters because this was never just a routine marine incident.

The MV Barima tragedy has devastated families, shattered communities, and left the nation grieving over scores of dead and missing citizens.

In such a moment, words are not ornamental. They are part of the state’s promise to the public. When the head of state speaks in the language of determination, exhaustiveness, and total commitment, the people understand that as an assurance that no avenue will be abandoned prematurely. When a senior government figure then appears to lower the horizon, the public is entitled to ask whether the state has changed course — and, if so, why.

The problem is not merely semantic. It is a problem of credibility.

A government cannot first project resolve and then, days later, sound as though the matter has already moved from rescue and recovery into resignation. If the vessel can no longer be salvaged, say so plainly, and explain the technical reasons. If the wreck is being preserved for evidentiary purposes, say so. If the state has concluded that further intervention would endanger divers, machinery, or recovery crews, say that too.

What is unacceptable is a drifting public narrative that leaves citizens to infer, from conflicting signals, that the tragedy is being managed as much for political optics as for truth and accountability.

This is where the issue becomes larger than the wreck itself. The nation does not simply want bodies recovered; it wants answers. It wants to know how the vessel came to capsize, whether there were mechanical failures, whether there were regulatory failures, whether there were ignored warnings, and whether all recoverable evidence will be preserved. A vessel on the seabed is not only a tomb. It is also a possible witness. To leave it there without a transparent explanation is to invite suspicion, especially in a country where citizens have learned too often that official reassurances can outpace official candour.

The government therefore has a duty to speak with one voice, or at least with one intelligible chain of command.

◊ Who is actually leading the response?

◊. Is the Prime Minister acting as the operational coordinator, while maritime authorities retain technical control?

◊ Has the Cabinet endorsed a decision not to raise the wreck?

◊ Did the President’s earlier assurance reflect an intention that later became unworkable, or did the state simply overpromise before the facts had been properly assessed?

These are not hostile questions. They are the questions a serious government should welcome if it believes its response is sound.

What is especially troubling is the appearance of a gap between political language and operational reality.

The President’s message was solemn, absolute, and emotionally charged. The Prime Minister’s recent statement was cautious, flat, and final-sounding. One promised full pursuit; the other sounded like a retreat from it. That is how public confidence is eroded — not only by failure, but by inconsistency.

None of this proves bad faith. It does, however, demand explanation. If the decision has been made to leave the vessel in place, then the state owes the public a full and technically grounded account. If the vessel can still be raised, then the message that it is “likely to remain there as is” must be interrogated immediately. And if there is disagreement within the government about the proper course, then that too is a scandal of leadership.

In a tragedy of this magnitude, the people are not asking for polished phrases. They are asking for coherence, competence, and truth. The state cannot demand patience while speaking with divided tongues. It cannot promise total commitment in one breath and near abandonment in the next. And it certainly cannot expect grieving families to accept silence where clarity is overdue.

The MV Barima disaster has already taken too much from Guyana. The government must not now add confusion to grief

 The. 592. Guardian 

Prime Minister Berates, Attempts to Eject Grieving Sister of Opposition Leader in Parliament Halls

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

 Prime Minister Berates, Attempts to Eject Grieving Sister of Opposition Leader in Parliament Halls

THE 592 GUARDIAN — ACCOUNTABILITY DESK  |  July, 2026

Prime Minister Mark Phillips raised his voice, pointed a finger, and ordered a young woman to leave a public building on Monday, as families of the MV Barima disaster’s dead confronted the government in the halls of Parliament. The woman was Hadiyyah Mohamed, sister of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed. The confrontation was captured on video and circulated publicly.

WHAT THE VIDEO SHOWS

The footage — verified by this news media— shows Phillips shouting at Ms. Mohamed at close range, jabbing his finger toward her, and instructing her repeatedly to “get from here” and “move from here.” Mohamed can be heard responding “do not yell at me, sir” multiple times, asserting her right as a private citizen to be present, and asking pointedly whether the Prime Minister’s conduct amounted to that of a “dictatorship.”

Phillips’s own remarks are frequently inaudible on the recording, though his tone and posture — captured clearly on camera — are not in dispute.

Notably, it was Phillips who raised his voice and escalated the physical confrontation, even as he appeared to accuse Ms. Mohamed  of  misconduct by misleading surviving   assembled family members . The irony was not lost on bystanders: a sitting Prime Minister, lecturing grieving citizens on decorum, while shouting and pointing in a public corridor of the nation’s Parliament.

MOHAMED’S ACCOUNT

According to Mohamed’s own account of the encounter, the confrontation began when relatives of three MV Barima victims, guests of  Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed approached his  sister in the halls of Parliament to voice their grief.

A bewildered but very composed Ms. Mohamed

Phillips then inserted himself into that meeting, offering the family condolences and pledging to “correct the mistake.” When Hadiyyah Mohamed pressed him directly — “when?” — Phillips replied “now,” and the exchange escalated. He then turned on her, demanding to know why she was there. Her answer was simple: it is a public building.

That answer is the spine of what happened next. Rather than accept it, Phillips told her to “get from here” — an attempt, in substance, to remove the one person positioned to hear what he was telling a grieving family, in a building that belongs to the public he serves.

Mohamed says his personal security detail then made physical contact with her as they moved to remove her from the area. She says she objected — “don’t touch me, sir” — and that Phillips himself intervened to call off his own security, telling them “no, no, don’t touch her, leave her.” Phillips then walked away mumbling incoherently . 

This news- media  has independently verified the video recording of the public confrontation. Mohamed’s fuller account of what preceded and followed the recorded portion — including the exchange over her right to be present and the sequence of the security contact — is presented here as her own attributed account, not as independently confirmed fact.

AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP A WITNESS OUT OF THE ROOM

What Mohamed describes is not simply rudeness. A Prime Minister who tries to remove a citizen from a public building — specifically the one citizen standing beside a grieving family as he makes them a promise — is not managing decorum.

He is trying to control who hears him. Her refusal to leave was not defiance for its own sake; it was an assertion of the plainest civic fact available to her: the building is public, and so, in that moment, was his conduct in it.

CONTEXT: A DISASTER REDUCED TO A FOOTNOTE

The confrontation took place on the same day Parliament observed a full single minute of silence for the MV Barima disaster, which claimed more than 100 lives. Leaving one burning question,was those 100 souls, only deserving of a mere 60 seconds of the. PPP’s precious time?  The majority of them Indigenous and Amerindian Guyanese, with Indian and African Guyanese also among the dead — before proceeding to pass a $54.9 billion bill. Critics, including Mohamed, have argued that a tragedy of this scale warranted more than symbolic acknowledgment from a government still facing calls to remove Public Works Minister Juan Edghill and Minister within Public Works Deodat Indar over ministerial responsibility for the disaster.

Set against that backdrop, Monday’s confrontation reads less as an isolated lapse in temper than as a demonstration of how this administration treats accountability when it shows up in person. A grieving family sought answers from the country’s second-highest office. What they received, on video, was a raised voice, a pointed finger, and an order to leave.

THE STANDARD A PRIME MINISTER IS HELD TO

Guyana’s Prime Minister is not a private citizen and is not entitled to the latitude of one. Public officials who lose their composure with bereaved constituents — particularly in the immediate aftermath of a mass-casualty disaster their own ministries are implicated in — invite exactly the scrutiny this news-media is applying here.

Whether Phillips’s conduct rises to actionable misconduct is a matter for Guyanese to judge for themselves, now that the footage is public.

What is not in dispute is that the Prime Minister, not the grieving woman he confronted, was the one raising his voice in a public building.

The 592 Guardian has sought comment from the Office of the Prime Minister. This report will be updated with any response.

— The Board

Recuse Them Now: The MV Barima Inquiry Cannot Begin While Its Subjects Still Hold the Keys

/0 Comments/in , , /by
THE 592 GUARDIAN EDITORIAL ♦  ACCOUNTABILITY.♦ JUSTICE

 EDITORIAL

Recuse Them Now: The MV Barima Inquiry Cannot Begin While Its Subjects Still Hold the Keys

July, 2026

On Tuesday, calls for the resignation of Minister of Public Works Juan Edghill were dismissed by Prime Minister Brigadier (Ret’d) Mark Phillips as noise — the Prime Minister’s own word, offered when he was asked directly whether the minister should go. BY Friday, on Boom FM, the same Prime Minister was speaking a markedly different language: commissions of inquiry, mandatory testing regimes, expanded CCTV coverage, psychosocial support for the bereaved. The velocity of that conversion should trouble every citizen paying attention, not reassure them. This is not principled evolution.

It is damage control, arriving days after Transparency International Guyana Inc. and virtually the entire parliamentary opposition had already said, in far plainer terms, what needed to happen.

WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING ASKED

The demand is not novel, and it is not partisan noise. TIGI has called for the immediate recusal of Minister Edghill, Minister of Public Utilities and Aviation Deodat Indar, and the senior management of the Maritime Administration Department from any supervisory role in the investigation into this tragedy. The Opposition — APNU, the AFC, WIN and others rarely aligned on much else — has converged independently on the same position: both ministers should stand aside, and MARAD’s Director General should go with them, pending an inquiry conducted by qualified external maritime expertise. This news media  joins that call without reservation. Recusal is not resignation and it is not a verdict of guilt. It is the minimum precondition for an inquiry anyone can trust.

THE INTEGRITY PROBLEM THE PRIME MINISTER WILL NOT NAME

An independent Commission of Inquiry is only as credible as the evidentiary record it is built upon. Passenger manifests, ticketing records, port-clearance logs, dry-docking documentation, drug-testing compliance files — precisely the categories the Prime Minister himself listed as within the inquiry’s scope — do not exist in a vacuum.

They exist in filing systems and databases under the administrative custody of the ministries and the department now under scrutiny. TIGI has already flagged what it calls manifest fraud: initial records reportedly listing 116 passengers and 17 crew, against a death toll that has climbed past 100 with dozens still unaccounted for. Where the officials responsible for that manifest’s accuracy retain authority over the records during the investigative window, the opportunity to shape, misplace or quietly correct inconsistent documentation is not a hypothetical risk. It is a standing invitation, and it is precisely the condition recusal exists to foreclose.

MARAD cannot credibly investigate its own regulatory conduct without independent oversight.

Line management at MARAD and the Transport and Harbours Department has already been sent on administrative leave. That step, taken swiftly, only sharpens the question of why the ministers with direct oversight responsibility for those same agencies have not been asked to do the same. A department can be managed on an acting basis for the duration of an inquiry. The absence of that basic firewall between the investigated and the investigation is the gap this editorial exists to name.

THIS IS NOT GUYANA’S FIRST REHEARSAL OF THIS SCRIPT

The pattern is familiar, and it has a recent name: Mahdia. The 2023 dormitory fire that killed twenty children produced an inquiry, a report, and years of litigation in which the state has fought its own citizens in court rather than settle what its own process found. TIGI has explicitly invoked that precedent in demanding there be no repeat of it here.

Guyanese citizens are entitled to ask, in plain terms, whether the MV Barima inquiry is being designed to establish truth or to manage a news cycle until public attention moves on — while the state, years from now, is once again on the opposite side of a courtroom from the families it promised to stand with this week.

This is Guyana, and this pattern is commonplace here in a way it is not treated as normal elsewhere. That should be a source of national shame, not resignation.

THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS

The government’s decision to offer some families a flat GY$300,000 toward funeral expenses is being defended by the Prime Minister as emergency relief rather than compensation, with any compensation decision deferred until after the Commission of Inquiry reports. That distinction may be legally tidy. It is not the point. A sum that families and the parliamentary opposition alike have noted would not cover a burial was arrived at and disbursed without any visible consultation with the families receiving it.

Grief does not strip citizens of the standing to be consulted about what is done in their name and with their dead. An arbitrary figure, however well-intentioned, delivered top-down in the immediate aftermath of mass loss, reads less like empathy than like efficiency — the state moving to close a line item before it has finished counting bodies.

WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY CANNOT MEAN

The Prime Minister’s Friday remarks describe prospective reform: stronger testing, better port security, more cameras on the wharves. They say nothing about retrospective accountability for the specific chain of decisions that put an eighty-seven-year-old vessel, reportedly loaded well beyond any accurate count, on the water on the eighteenth of July. Reform of future procedure is not a substitute for accountability for this tragedy, and a government under sustained public pressure has every incentive to let the first stand in for the second. We will not allow that substitution to pass without challenge.

WHAT THE 592 GUARDIAN WILL BE WATCHING

We will be tracking, specifically: whether Minister Edghill and Minister Indar recuse themselves from any supervisory role over the Transport and Harbours Department and MARAD pending the Commission’s findings; whether the Commission’s terms of reference guarantee independent, unmediated access to original records rather than records filtered through the ministries under investigation; and whether the compensation process that follows the inquiry is negotiated with the families it concerns, rather than announced to them. The families of the MV Barima’s victims were promised truth.

Truth requires a record that has not been tampered with, and a process that treats the bereaved as parties to be consulted rather than a crisis to be managed. On the government’s current posture, neither has yet been demonstrated — only promised, in the same breath as an inquiry whose credibility depends on both.

— The Board

Nadir’s Confidentiality Directive Preceded APNU’s Bid for a Parliamentary Commission on of Inquiry 

/0 Comments/in , , /by

 

THE 592 GUARDIAN ♦ACCOUNTABILITY JOURNALISM ♦PARLIAMENT / MV BARIMA

 Nadir’s Confidentiality Directive Preceded APNU’s Bid for a Parliamentary Commission on of Inquiry  

Speaker’s reminder on committee secrecy arrived with no committee assigned to the Barima matter — as the opposition moved to force a House-adopted inquiry with binding terms of reference

Georgetown, Guyana — July, 2026

Two moves inside the National Assembly this week, read together rather than apart, describe the shape of a single contest: whether Parliament — not the Executive — will set the terms on which the MV Barima disaster is investigated, and whether Monday’s sitting will be permitted to become the venue for that fight at all.

On Friday, Clerk of the National Assembly Sherlock Isaacs wrote to all Members of Parliament at the direction of Speaker Manzoor Nadir, drawing their attention to Standing Order No. 101 on the confidentiality of committee proceedings and Standing Order No. 103 on the premature publication of evidence.

The letter cautioned MPs against press statements, interviews, social media commentary or any public remarks on “committee proceedings” unless expressly authorised, and confined media briefings on such matters to a committee chairperson or another member the committee itself designates.

The difficulty, according to opposition parliamentarians, is that no committee proceeding exists for the directive to attach to. Members of the APNU opposition say they have received no written notice from the Clerk’s office assigning any Barima-related matter to a sectoral, special select, or any other parliamentary committee — and under the Assembly’s own practice, such an assignment would come to them in writing. As of this publication will neither the Speaker’s office nor the Clerk has responded to queries on which committee proceeding, if any, the July 24 directive was meant to protect.

If Standing Order 101 protects committee proceedings, and no committee has been assigned this matter, the directive is invoking a protection that currently has nothing to protect.

— Editorial assessment, The 592 Guardian

THE APNU LETTER

The confidentiality directive was issued the same week APNU parliamentary leader Dr Terrence Campbell wrote to Speaker Nadir proposing that the National Assembly use Monday’s sitting to debate and adopt terms of reference for an independent commission of inquiry into the July 18 sinking of the 87-year-old, Scottish-built MV Barima — a disaster that has unofficially claimed more than 100 lives.

Campbell’s letter proposes that the House itself, rather than the Executive alone, define and adopt the inquiry’s mandate. His draft terms of reference include:

  1. Establishing the facts of the sinking, including timeline, passenger and manifest records, cargo, and weather and navigation conditions.
  2. Determining causes and contributing factors, including vessel seaworthiness, crew qualifications, and compliance with maritime law and safety standards.
  3. Examining the adequacy and timeliness of the search-and-rescue response.
  4. Assessing the regulatory framework, inspection regimes and enforcement practices of maritime and port authorities, and identifying systemic failures.
  5. Examining any allegations of negligence, misconduct, corruption or breach of statutory duty, with recommendations for legal or disciplinary action.
  6. Recommending measures to improve passenger and crew safety and emergency preparedness.
  7. Empowering the inquiry to compel documents and summon witnesses, and to produce a full public report within a specified timeframe.
  8. Adopting interim measures to protect public safety pending the inquiry’s outcome.

PNCR General Secretary Sherwin Benjamin, whose party is APNU’s largest coalition partner, has signalled the opposition will not confine its pressure to the floor of the House. He has raised the prospect of “mass political activities” — a term opposition figures have used to mean street protest — if government does not accede to the demand for a parliamentary-adopted inquiry.

WHAT THE SEQUENCE SUGGESTS — AND WHAT IT DOESN’T YET PROVE

Opposition parliamentarians who spoke to this publication characterised the timing as more than coincidence, asserting that Campbell’s request for a House-adopted commission of inquiry is what prompted the Speaker’s confidentiality directive, and reading it as a signal that Nadir does not intend to allow APNU’s motion to proceed Monday. That is, at this stage, an account attributed to opposition sources describing their understanding of Nadir’s intent — not a confirmed sequence of cause and effect, and this publication has not independently established which letter reached the Speaker’s desk first, nor obtained any account from Nadir’s office of its own reasoning.

What is independently verifiable is narrower, and arguably still damning enough on its own terms: a confidentiality directive citing committee-secrecy provisions was issued with no committee assignment on record; it landed inside the same week the opposition moved formally to wrest control of the Barima inquiry’s terms away from the Executive and place them before the full House; and neither the Speaker nor the Clerk has yet explained, publicly, what proceeding the directive was protecting.

A Speaker acting to safeguard a live committee process does not normally need to explain himself. A Speaker whose directive appears to precede any such process does.

Monday’s order paper — specifically, whether Campbell’s motion is permitted to reach the floor at all — will be the more reliable indicator of intent than anything said about this week’s sequencing. If the motion is scheduled, debated and put to a vote, the confidentiality directive will read as an unrelated, if badly timed, procedural reminder. If it is deferred, ruled out of order, or quietly kept off the agenda, the pattern opposition MPs are describing will have hardened into something closer to demonstrated fact.

OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS

  • Which committee, if any, does the Speaker’s July 24 directive relate to, and when was it constituted?
  • Did Campbell’s letter reach the Speaker’s office before or after the Clerk’s directive was issued?
  • Will Campbell’s motion on CoI terms of reference appear on Monday’s order paper?
  • Has the Parliamentary Sectoral Committee on Economic Services — of which Minister Edghill is a member — met or been asked to consider any Barima-related matter?

This report distinguishes verified findings — the content of the Clerk’s letter, the absence of any recorded committee assignment, and the text of APNU’s proposed terms of reference — from claims attributed to opposition sources regarding the Speaker’s motive, which remain unconfirmed pending response from the Speaker’s and Clerk’s offices.

— The Board

Bought, Berthed, and Buried in Paperwork: How Guyana Let the MV Barima Sail Alone

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

MARITIME GOVERNANCE / REGION ONE / INTERIM RESPONSE

Bought, Berthed, and Buried in Paperwork: How Guyana Let the MV Barima Sail Alone

An open cargo barge now stands in for a passenger and freight service to Port Kaituma that a $12.7 million Indian-built ferry was supposed to be running by 2023 — and the vessel that did make the run, uninsured and unaccompanied by an accurate passenger count, has taken dozens of lives.

THE 592 GUARDIAN EDITORIAL BOARD

An “IMPORTANT NOTICE” posted this week by the Ministry of Public Works, over the joint seal of the Ministry and the Transport and Harbours Department (T&HD), announces an “interim arrangement” for cargo shipment to Port Kaituma: an open barge, loading at the Kingston Goods Wharf on Saturday, July 25th, 2026, departing Georgetown on Monday, July 27th at 5 p.m. Cargo and essential supplies only. No passengers. The notice describes the service as “provided free of charge,” as though the state were extending a courtesy rather than discharging an obligation it has held, uninterrupted, since it became the sole operator on this route in 2019.

The notice does not name what it is standing in for. It does not have to. Nine days earlier, the vessel that has carried Region One’s cargo and passengers for more than four decades, the MV Barima, launched from that same Kingston wharf toward that same destination and never arrived. It capsized roughly seven miles off the Essequibo coast near Iron Punt on the night of Saturday, July 18th. As of this week, dozens are confirmed dead, dozens more remain missing, and the government’s own passenger manifest has been shown to not reflect who was actually on board.

A VESSEL BOUGHT, THEN LEFT IDLE FOR THREE YEARS

The government’s answer, when asked why an 87-year-old ferry was still the sole vessel on Guyana’s most isolated passenger and cargo route, has been consistent: a replacement already exists. Officials told the Associated Press that a US$12.7 million vessel purchased from India, the MV Ma Lisha, was “awaiting the completion of a special pier at Port Kaituma.”

That answer requires scrutiny, not acceptance. The Ma Lisha is not a vessel in transit or under construction. It is a finished ship that has been sitting in Guyanese waters, largely unused for its intended purpose, for more than three years.

2021

 Guyana signs a deal with Indian state shipbuilder Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Limited to construct the MV Ma Lisha, financed by a loan from the Government of India that required the vessel be built in India.
Apr 2023

 The MV Ma Lisha arrives in Guyana, acquired specifically to improve river transportation for hinterland communities in Region One — including Port Kaituma
2023 – 2026

 The Ministry of Public Works had announced, ahead of the vessel’s arrival, plans to upgrade the Port Kaituma wharf to receive it. The upgrade is not completed. The Ma Lisha instead sails a shorter route to Kumaka. It has still not made a maiden voyage to Port Kaituma.
 Jul 18 2026

 The MV Barima — the sole remaining vessel on the Georgetown–Port Kaituma route since 2019 — capsizes roughly seven miles offshore near Iron Punt with, by the government’s own later estimate, as many as 179 people aboard against a manifest of 116 to 133.
Jul 22, 2026

 Minister of Public Works Juan Edghill tells the National Toshaos Council that the Ma Lisha still has not sailed to Port Kaituma because the rebuilt wharf developed structural problems after the soil beneath it shifted, forcing sections to be reconstructed.
Jul 25–27, 2026

 The Ministry issues the “interim arrangement” notice: an open cargo barge, no passengers, to Port Kaituma — the service this newspaper is examining here.

Set beside each other, the record shows a government that had already diagnosed the exact failure now being mourned. The wharf upgrade was announced before the Ma Lisha even arrived in the country. The infrastructure gap was not discovered in the aftermath of the Barima tragedy — it was known, budgeted around, and left open for three years while the only alternative kept the route alive on borrowed time.

A FERRY THE MINISTER CALLED THE “VESSEL OF CHOICE” — DAYS BEFORE IT SANK

In the same National Toshaos Council remarks in which he explained the Ma Lisha’s continued idleness, Minister Edghill described the Barima, prior to its sinking, as the vessel “of choice for both residents and business people to get into Port Kaituma,” and said extensive maintenance work had been carried out on it. This was not an isolated defense. Following the capsizing, Edghill has repeatedly and specifically rejected the characterization that the vessel was unseaworthy.

“There was no report of any kind that suggested the vessel was unseaworthy. It was in line for dry docking in keeping with the schedule.”

— Minister of Public Works Juan Edghill, government press briefing, July 19, 2026

According to Edghill, the Barima was last dry-docked in 2024 and was scheduled to return to dry dock in the latter half of 2026, alongside the MV Malali and MB Hercules. That defense is narrower than it may appear. A vessel can pass a maintenance schedule and still be the wrong vessel for the route and the volume it was carrying. As one commentary in Guyana’s press put it in the days after the sinking:

There is a difference between a vessel that passes a paper test and a vessel that is right for the job. We kept a 1939 hull as the sole lifeline to Port Kaituma, Morawhanna, Kumaka and Mabaruma long after we told ourselves we would retire her.

— Demerara Waves, staff commentary, July 22, 2026

This publication will takes. no position on the technical seaworthiness of the MV Barima; that is precisely what a Commission of Inquiry and independent naval architects, not politicians and not this editorial board, must determine. What is not in dispute, because the government has stated it directly, is this: the Barima operated without commercial insurance, and its passenger manifest failed to account for everyone who was aboard.

NO INSURANCE, NO ACCURATE COUNT OF WHO WAS ABOARD

Two admissions from senior officials, made at a Tuesday press briefing, deserve to be read together rather than separately, because each describes a different layer of the same failure of oversight.

First, on insurance. Minister Edghill confirmed that the Barima was not insured when it capsized, and characterized this as long-standing government practice: state-owned vessels operate without commercial insurance, with the government itself assuming the financial risk of loss or compensation.

Officials did not say whether a dedicated fund or formal self-insurance mechanism exists for maritime accidents of this scale, and it remains unclear what compensation, if any, is available to survivors and to the families of the dead.

Second, on the manifest. Prime Minister Brigadier (Ret’d) Mark Phillips acknowledged “a breakdown in the system” after it emerged that a substantial number of rescued passengers were never listed on the vessel’s official manifest — meaning that in the earliest and most critical hours of the search, rescuers did not have a reliable count of how many people they were even looking for. The Guyana Police Force has since extracted surveillance footage from the Kingston Goods Wharf specifically to reconstruct the loading and dispatch sequence, because the paper record could not be trusted to do so.

Both admissions came bundled with reassurance rather than resignation. Phillips said the manifest breakdown would form part of the forthcoming Commission of Inquiry, which he said would investigate “the extent of the failures” and recommend disciplinary measures. That the Prime Minister of an oil-producing nation now sitting on some of the largest per-capita petroleum revenues in the hemisphere must convene a Commission of Inquiry to establish how many people were on a government ferry is, in itself, the story.

WHAT THE RECORD DOES NOT YET SHOW

In the interest of the strict distinction this news media draws between verified finding and attributed allegation, it should be stated plainly: no inspection or technical report has been shown, in the public record reviewed for this piece, to have specifically failed the MV Barima or to have triggered a denial of insurance coverage. Minister Edghill has repeatedly and specifically denied that any such report existed. Separately, opposition figures — including former Minister of Public Infrastructure David Patterson and Forward Guyana Movement leader Amanza Walton-Desir — have called for the vessel’s full maintenance, inspection, dry-docking, and certification history to be handed to independent investigators, and have noted that a prior system of independent vessel inspectors was disbanded and, to their knowledge, never replaced with equivalent oversight.

Those are two different, unresolved questions, and this news media will not conflate them: whether the Barima’s technical condition was properly assessed before it sailed, and whether the oversight architecture meant to catch a failure like that even still existed. The government’s insistence that no report declared the vessel unfit does not answer the second question. It may not need to have declared the vessel unfit for the system to have failed.

QUESTIONS THE 592 GUARDIAN IS PUTTING TO THE MINISTRY OF PUBLIC WORKS

This news-media is formally requesting, and will continue to press for, answers to the following from the Ministry of Public Works and the Transport and Harbours Department:

  1. What is the current, itemized completion status of the Port Kaituma wharf upgrade, including the date the soil-shift defect was first identified, and by whom?
  2. What was the total cost, to date, of the MV Ma Lisha’s three years of idleness — including berthing, crewing, and maintenance costs for a vessel not performing its intended function?
  3. Will the Ministry release the MV Barima’s full maintenance, inspection, dry-docking, and certification records to independent investigators, as called for by former Minister David Patterson, and on what timeline?
  4. When was the independent vessel-inspection system referenced by opposition leader Amanza Walton-Desir disbanded, who made that decision, and what oversight mechanism, if any, replaced it?
  5. Is the current “free of charge” open-barge cargo notice intended as a temporary bridge to restored Ma Lisha service, and if so, what is the projected date passenger service to Port Kaituma resumes on any vessel?

The people of Port Kaituma, Morawhanna, Kumaka, and Mabaruma were not asking for luxury. They were asking, for well over a decade by some accounts, for a seaworthy, adequately overseen, and accurately accounted-for way to reach their own capital and return. A government that can find US$12.7 million for a new hull ought to be capable of finishing a wharf, insuring a vessel carrying human lives, and counting its own passengers. Until it demonstrates that capability, an open barge carrying only cargo — offered, notice says as a free service — is not evidence of state generosity. It is the visible residue of a state that built the boat and forgot the dock.

— The Board