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

 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