The Barima Scandal: Governance by Secrecy, Theatre by Design

The Barima Scandal: Governance by Secrecy, Theatre by Design

OPINION BY: STAFF WRITER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⇒Who authorised the invitation to KMS?

⇒Were other firms similarly engaged prior to the RFP?

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

⇒And why was the public not informed?

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

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

And at this moment, both remain in short supply.

Editor’s Note:

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

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

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

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

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

THE 592 GUARDIAN