The road not taken

Almost nothing here is original. Nearly every step was asked for in public at the time — by lawyers, village councils, opposition MPs, newspapers, a retired ship pilot. The advice was given. It just wasn't taken.

And it saves nobody. The ship still sinks at 11 that Saturday night. About 103 people still do not come home. What changes is only what the Government said and showed afterwards — which turns out to be nearly the whole difference between being trusted and being suspected.

The whole road, start to finish under an AI Advisor

• Sat 18 Jul, 11pmOne agency takes charge of the rescueThe sea rescue centre runs the night. Every boat and plane sent out is written down with the time. One agency counts the people pulled from the water, so the count cannot go wrong.
• Sun 19 JulNobody is blamed on day oneThe Minister does not say “mischief”. He says the ship was licensed for 397 people and carried 250 life jackets, that this does not add up, and that he does not yet know why. He shows the ship’s papers — or says plainly that he cannot find them.
• Mon 20 JulThe rescue log is made public, gaps and allIncluding any hours it shows with no government boat in the water. The wharf video is used to say what cargo went on board, not only how many people.
• Tue 21 JulOne set of numbers, every dayOn board, saved, found, named, still missing — and the total who did not come home. Same time each day, same officer. Families are told before the press.
• Wed 22 JulMARAD steps back from judging its own workIt passed this ship as fit to sail. So it cannot be the one to say the ship was fit. It hands over its whole file instead. The state also admits the ship had no insurance. (Asked for by the Transparency Institute the next day; we put it one day early.)
• Thu 23 JulTwo ministers step aside, and someone asks about the deadlineStepping aside is not resigning and is not guilt. It just means they do not run the department the inquiry is examining. The Attorney General is asked whether families face a time limit to claim. If they do, the state promises in writing not to use it.
• Fri 24 JulOutside investigators are asked inThe government owned the ship, inspected the ship and passed the ship. It cannot investigate itself and be believed.
• Sat 25 JulGrieving families are asked nothing yetNo paper about the wreck goes to any family until the divers have reported and the prosecutor has said in writing whether the ship is needed as evidence. The inquiry’s draft terms go out for comment, and Indigenous councils are asked what should be in them.
• Mon 27 JulParliament debates it, and the inquiry gets its papersSigned and published before anyone is appointed, with a secretary, a deadline and a budget. A bill to protect families’ right to claim goes to the House the same day.
• Tue 28 JulThe inquiry’s evidence rules are settled firstAnyone who may be asked to speak is told in advance what their words can be used for. Nothing here changes who gets charged, or when. That is the prosecutor’s decision and hers alone.
• Thu 30 JulThe inquiry is sworn in with the press in the roomIt starts on the paperwork — certificates, loading orders, contracts, repair records — because no silence can hide a document.
• Fri 31 JulThe ministry publishes its own wharf fileWhy a G$1.4 billion wharf failed, from the ministry that built it — not left for the opposition to reveal. With it, the March repair tender for the Barima, and whether that work was ever done.
• Sat 1 AugThe law is checked, and a new bill is promisedA retired ship pilot read the Acts and found no law requiring anyone to count passengers, no life-jacket rule covering a ferry this size, and no mention anywhere of the loading boss’s job. That is one man’s reading, uncorroborated. A bill to fix it within thirty days.
• Everything below this line is invented — a plan, not a forecast
• Aug 2026The inquiry works on paper, and the ship is raisedIt starts with documents — certificates, loading orders, contracts, repair records, the video, the rescue log — because no silence can hide a file. The prosecutor says in writing whether the wreck is evidence, the families are asked after the divers report rather than before, and the Government pays to lift her.
• Sep 2026A first partial report, and the money startsOn the rescue and the counting only, published whole on the day it is handed over. The payment scheme opens with a published rate, a named officer and a running total, and every payment says on its face that it is not a settlement.
• Oct 2026The law changesPassengers must be counted and the count kept ashore. A life-jacket rule that covers ferries this size. The loading boss becomes a real job in law. An accident investigator who can investigate the Government’s own ships. The six-month time limit is scrapped for this disaster.
• Dec 2026The deadline passes and takes nothing with itOn the old law this is the month families would have had to file notice or lose their claim forever. It passes without harming anybody, because it was dealt with in July. The quietest turn on this page and the most important.
• Early 2027The full report, published whole on the dayWhat it concludes about the sinking is not for this page to invent. What can be said is that the Cabinet does not read it first, and the Government answers every recommendation in writing within sixty days — accept, reject, or accept in part, and why.
• Mid 2027The boats, and the wharfPort Kaituma is finished and its final cost published. The newer ferry takes the route. Cargo is separated from passengers. Every ferry’s certificate goes online each year — the cheapest thing on this list and the one that makes the rest keep themselves honest. A memorial is built with the families, not proposed to them.

Day by day, and why

Saturday 18 July, 11pm — the night

One agency takes charge. The sea rescue centre runs the night and is named publicly by morning. Every boat and plane sent out is written down with a time. One agency counts the people pulled from the water.

Why. It costs nothing to write down a time. It costs everything later not to have. And when two agencies count separately, the numbers jump — which is what a former Minister says happened here.

Sunday 19 July — the first press conference

Nobody is blamed. The Minister does not say "mischief". He does not name a cause at all.

He gives the numbers straight. The ship was licensed for 397 people and carried 250 life jackets. Those two do not agree. He says so himself, before anyone asks, and does not claim the ship met the safety standard. He shows the ship's papers — or says plainly he cannot find them and has ordered a search.

The drug test results go to the police, not to the press. They are not the Government's first public word about the crew, a day after the ship went down with most of the crew still in the water.

Why. Both numbers were public that day anyway. What was missing was one sentence: these do not add up and I do not know why yet. Instead the Minister said the ship met the standard, and fourteen days later nobody has explained it. Naming a cause on day one is the thing you cannot take back. It fixed the story at the bottom — the wharf workers — before anyone had read a document.

Monday 20 July — the video

The rescue log goes public, gaps and all — including any hours it shows with nothing government-owned in the water.

Police take the wharf CCTV that day. The Government says what it shows about the cargo, not only how many people boarded.

The loading team is suspended by letter, not by Facebook post, and the letter says on its face this is not a finding of fault against anyone.

Why. A published log is a permanent record of how long everything took, and if the honest answer is an ugly one, the Government owns it in print on day two. That is a real price, paid once. Nobody outside government knows what the log says; that is the point.

The video is the sharper one. The Government used that video to answer one question — how many people were on board — and has never said what it shows about the cargo. It may be that the cameras do not show the cargo; nobody outside government knows, because nobody has been told. Saying which would take a sentence, and fourteen days on, nobody has been asked for it in public.

Tuesday 21 July — the counting

One set of numbers, every day. On board, saved, found, named, still missing — and the total who did not come home. Same hour, same officer, arithmetic shown. Families told before the press.

Why. The Government has published bodies found. It has never published the total. Newspapers had to work it out by subtraction. And a number that must add up in public cannot quietly change — which is what happened on 30 July, when the official count dropped from 73 to 72 with no explanation. Nobody has explained it since.

Wednesday 22 July — the regulator

MARAD steps back. It passed this ship as fit to sail, so it cannot be the body that decides whether the ship was fit. It says so publicly and hands its whole file to the investigators.

The same day the Government confirms the ship had no insurance — and says in the same breath what that means for the families.

Why. The Transparency Institute asked for this the next day — 23 July — so we have put it one day early, and that is the sixth thing on this page we have taken a liberty with. It is also the most expensive decision here, and a government might reasonably refuse it. But MARAD's "not overloaded" finding rested on paperwork nobody has ever seen, from an official who could not say where his own figures came from. MARAD has now said nothing at all since 24 July. It spent its good name on a finding that bought it four quiet days and has been a weight around its neck ever since.

Thursday 23 July — stepping aside

Two ministers step aside from any role in the investigation. Not resigning. Not guilt. Just not running the department the inquiry is examining. Someone else holds the job until the inquiry reports.

The Attorney General is asked one question: is there a time limit on families claiming? If yes, the Government promises in writing not to use it.

Why. The Transparency Institute asked for exactly this on this exact day, naming both ministers. No answer to it appears anywhere in this archive. What did not go away was the louder demand next to it — that the ministers resign outright — and eight days later that one was outside the Minister's home. Stepping aside early is the cheaper answer to a demand that only gets more expensive. A fortnight spent arguing about one minister's job is a fortnight not spent on the ship's papers. On the time limit, see the last section. It is the only thing here still running.

Friday 24 July — outside eyes

Outside investigators are asked in. The Government owned this ship, inspected it and passed it. It cannot investigate itself and be believed.

Why. The Transparency Institute asked for this on the 23rd. It is slower, and it would not have finished by now either. What it buys is a finding people will accept.

Saturday 25 July — the families

Nothing goes to grieving families. No paper about the wreck reaches anybody until the divers have reported and the prosecutor has said in writing whether the ship is needed as evidence.

The inquiry's terms go out in draft, for comment. Indigenous councils are asked what should be in them, because most of the dead were from Region One.

Why. A paper asking families to accept the wreck as a memorial went out on 25 July. The divers' warning that it was too dangerous to enter came on the 27th. The reason arrived two days after the request. That did not have to happen.

Monday 27 July — Parliament

The inquiry's papers are signed and published before anyone is appointed — with a secretary, a deadline and a budget. APNU's motion gets its debate instead of being pre-empted. A bill protecting families' right to claim goes to the House the same day.

Why. Every objection raised later — too narrow, nobody consulted, no papers, no deadline — could have been heard here in one afternoon.

Tuesday 28 July — the evidence rules

How the inquiry will take evidence is settled and published first. Anyone who may be asked to speak is told, in advance, what their words can and cannot be used for.

This changes nothing about who gets charged, or when. That is the prosecutor's decision and hers alone.

Why. Four ways of solving this were written out by a retired ship pilot and published on this website on 29 July. He called it the most urgent practical problem facing the inquiry. The inquiry was sworn in the next day with no rules at all. The day after that, the men the inquiry most needs to hear from were arguing in public, through their lawyer, about whether they would speak to it. Choosing any of the four would have prevented that. Nobody chose.

Thursday 30 July — the inquiry opens

Sworn in with the press in the room, not behind closed doors. It starts on the paperwork — certificates, loading orders, contracts, repair records — because no silence can hide a document.

Why. There is no version of an inquiry into a hundred deaths that is better held in private. Opening it costs nothing.

Friday 31 July — the wharf

The ministry publishes its own wharf file. The design, the contractor, the ground survey, and why the tie rods snapped on a G$1.4 billion wharf — from the ministry that built it, not from an opposition MP at a press conference.

With it: the March repair tender for the Barima, and a plain statement of whether that work was ever done.

Why. This is the most damaging thing the Government could publish about itself. But the Prime Minister has already admitted the chain: the wharf was unfinished, so the new ferry could not use the route, so an 87-year-old ship was still running it on 18 July. Once you admit the chain, hiding the file only changes when the story breaks.

Saturday 1 August — the law

The law is checked and a bill is promised. Because whatever the inquiry finds about this one voyage, the gaps in the law will outlast it.

What a retired ship pilot found, unasked: no law requires anyone to count passengers. No life-jacket rule covers a ferry this size. The loading superintendent's job — the very job the Minister pointed at — is not written into any law at all. And the main part of the 1883 law on shipping accidents does not cover the Government's own ships — it says so itself.

A bill to fix it, in draft, within thirty days.

Why. Everything else here is about handling one disaster. This is about whether the next ferry sails under a rule that exists.

Sources for everything above about what actually happened:

How it ends — all of this is invented

Everything above is set against a real record that ends on 31 July. Everything from here is the future, and it is guesswork — a plan for how this road ends, not a forecast. It will not say what the inquiry finds about why the ship went down, because nobody can know that. And it says nothing about the court case against Kevin Price, Rondell Roberts and Delon Granderson, who are charged and not tried. Their case runs its own course and none of it is here.

The strip at the top of this page carries the whole plan, month by month. Three parts of it are worth saying at length.

The month that would have taken everything

On the old law, December 2026 is when families would have had to file notice or lose their claim forever — a letter naming a lawyer, six months after a night most of them are still trying to get through. On this road it passes without harming anybody, because it was dealt with back in July.

For the roughly thirty families with no body at all, who cannot easily get the papers to act for the dead, it would have been the hardest deadline of the lot.

That is the quietest turn on this page and the most important one. Nothing else here would have mattered as much to as many people, and it would have cost one question to the Attorney General in the third week of July.

The report, and what this page will not invent

The inquiry reports in early 2027. What it concludes about why the ship went down is not for this page to make up, and it does not.

What can be said is what happens to the report. It is published whole, on the day it is handed over — because a report the Cabinet reads first is a report nobody trusts. The Government answers every recommendation in writing within sixty days: accept, reject, or accept in part, and why. That answer is published too.

The ministers who stepped aside in July either come back or do not, on the strength of what the report says. Because they stepped aside early, that is a decision about the findings and not about the politics of quitting.

What the country has at the end

Ferries that are counted, certified in public, and inspected by somebody who does not own them. A law that reaches the Government's own ships. Families paid without having to sue. A report the public read at the same time as the Cabinet. And a Government that lost a few bad weeks in July 2026 and kept the one thing that is hardest to get back.

None of that needs better people. It needs the same people showing their work.

Sources for everything above about what actually happened:

What it would have cost

An advisor who only tells you the good part is not an advisor. Four prices.

Bad headlines, straight away. Refuse to name a cause on day one and you are called evasive by day two. Say you cannot find the ship's papers and that is the front page on 19 July.

Control, for good. Once you brief openly every day you cannot go quiet again without the silence becoming the story. Though the Government never really had control: the figures moved anyway, the newspapers counted anyway, and it was accused of hiding information anyway — by a man who once ran that very ministry.

Money. Promising not to use a time limit, on a ship with no insurance, opens the treasury to claims from the families of about a hundred people. A finance ministry would fight it and would not be wrong to.

Looking weak. Stepping aside looks like guilt. A regulator standing back looks like an admission. Publishing your own failed contract looks like a confession. Every one of these looks like retreat on the day — and only looks like strength later. That is why they are hard, and why governments under pressure almost never do them.

What we made up

The first fortnight above is set against a real record. Most of it was asked for in public at the time. Six things were not, or came a little later than the day we put them, and it is only fair to say which.

MARAD stepping back (22 July) — asked for, but the next day, not that one. The written word from the prosecutor about the wreck (25 July) — nobody asked for it at all. The inquiry's signed papers, secretary, budget and deadline (27 July) — nobody asked for those either. The daily count (21 July) — the clearest call for it came on 30 July. The evidence rules (28 July) rest on a document published on the 29th. And the biggest: the time limit (23 July) was raised by nobody in Guyana until a retired ship pilot raised it on 29 July. That is exactly why it matters, and it is also the biggest thing we invented.

We also turned down advice that was given. Many asked for ministers to resign; this page says step aside instead, which is not the same thing. The Assakata Village Council asked for the ship to be raised — and this page does raise her, in August, though only after the prosecutor and the families have been asked.

And everything after 1 August is made up entirely. It is a plan, not a prediction. The dates are round numbers.

The one thing here that is not history

Everything above is imaginary. This is not.

A retired ship pilot read the Transport and Harbours Act and says section 23 gives families six months to start a claim, with a written notice a month before that. On his reading the deadline is about 18 January 2027, with notice due by about 18 December 2026. He also says there is no insurer to claim from, because Guyana wrote the limit on payouts into law without writing in the payouts.

The inquiry will almost certainly not have finished by then. A family with no body cannot easily get the papers to act for the dead. Region One has no road to Georgetown, and the boat that connected them is on the sea floor.

In fourteen days, nobody in Government has said the word "limitation" once.

This archive is not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. But if that reading is right, a clock is running against families who have not yet buried anybody — and the side that gains from their not knowing is the side that has not told them.

Everything else on this page is a road not taken. That one is a clock.

How to read this page

It is not proof of anything. Not one line of it happened. What did happen is on the chronology, the figures and the positions pages, where every line names its source.

It is not calling anyone a liar. Most decisions here have an innocent explanation, and those are set out at length in what doesn't add up. Governments in the first hours of a disaster decide in the dark, exhausted, with grieving families in front of them. This page was written afterwards, at a desk, by something that does not get tired.

Nothing here touches the court case. Kevin Price, Rondell Roberts and Delon Granderson have been charged and not tried. Nothing on this page suggests what they did or did not do, and no part of it says what should happen to them.