Positions and proposals

Compiled 26 July 2026, last revised 14 August 2026. This page records what identified parties have said, attributed to each, as reported in the sources. It contains no assessment by this archive of who is correct, and no recommendation. Where two sources report a party's position differently, both figures are given. Where a position rests on a single source, that is stated.

Time-critical: one position on this page concerns a deadline

Placed first because of the date in it, and for no other reason.

Single source In a statutory analysis submitted to this archive on 29 July and recorded in full further down this page, Robert C. Millington reads section 23 of the Transport and Harbours Act, Cap. 49:04, as requiring that no action against the Transport and Harbours Department be commenced until one month after written notice naming the claimant's legal practitioner has been served, and that every such action be commenced within six months after the act or omission complained of, "and not otherwise." On that reading the period expires on or about 18 January 2027, and the notice would be due by about 18 December 2026. He records it as the most urgent item in his document, gives six reasons why such a period would fall hardest on bereaved Region One families, and states that there is in any event no insurer to claim against, because Guyana enacted the limitation of liability in Part XVI of Cap. 49:01 without enacting the liability.

This is his construction of the section. This archive is not qualified to confirm it, and nothing here is legal advice. It is recorded prominently, and repeated on the figures page with his six reasons set out, because if the construction is right a period is running now, and a family that waits for the Commission of Inquiry to report may find it gone. Anyone who may have a claim arising from the loss of the MV Barima should take Guyanese legal advice now rather than wait for the Commission. That is the author's own recommendation; this archive repeats it without endorsing his reading of the section and offers no advice of its own.

The Government of Guyana

Minister of Public Works, Juan Edghill

At an evening press conference on 19 July, Edghill stated that only 35 of the 67 people then rescued appeared on the vessel's manifest, that 116 people had been accounted for through booking systems (100 through the Online Booking System and 16 through Mobile Money Guyana), and that the captain and first engineer had tested positive for cannabis. He said he had personally audited the cargo manifest line by line and obtained an early figure of 260 tonnes, against 268 tonnes manifested and 284 tonnes he described as licensed, with 397 licensed passengers. Asked what had occurred, he answered: "One word… we can't excuse it: mischief. Mischief. And that's why I'm outraged." He also said: "We are not taking anything for granted by anybody's word. We are going back through everything with a fine-tooth comb."

On the division of responsibility he stated that the Transport & Harbours Department is the service provider and the Maritime Administration Department is the regulator, and that the disaster stemmed from operational breaches at ground level rather than regulatory failure.

On the vessel's condition, DPI published a release on 20 July headlined "MV Barima was seaworthy – Min Edghill." Edghill's quoted words are narrower: "There was no report of any kind that suggested the vessel was unseaworthy." On the machinery he stated "There was no engine problem or any mechanical problem" (19–20 July) and, on 22 July, "there was no reported engine troubles from the crew when the boat came in and when the boat left."

Survivor accounts differ on this point. Kiskadee Watch of 20 July carries two passengers describing engine trouble before departure. A survivor identified as Adreiena states the engine had stopped twice before the vessel left, and that no pump was available when water entered: "Dem ain't get a pump or nothing to pull the water. All the water go in the engine." Businessman Donald Modeste states the vessel became stuck on a sandbank at the wharf for almost an hour and then departed on one engine: "when they get it off, it start working on one engine and they still go with it. They stop and had the mechanic man working on the engine and still forcing the boat to go." A third account, survivor Leon Murray via the Associated Press, places an engine failure about four hours out. This archive does not adjudicate between the Minister's statements and the passengers' accounts; both are recorded.

On 20 July the management team responsible for loading and dispatch was suspended, announced by Facebook post and described as protecting the integrity of the coming inquiry rather than as a finding of fault. On 22 July Edghill confirmed the state had assumed the risk on an uninsured vessel.

Prime Minister Mark Phillips

Phillips delivered the recovery briefings. On 21 July he stated a complement of 179 including 18 crew, saying he was confident in the figure. On 24 July he reported 73 bodies recovered, 69 identified, 63 released to families and 30 unaccounted for, with three aircraft and fourteen vessels deployed. He stated that delayed Port Kaituma wharf works were the reason the newer MV Ma Lisha could not run the route. Asked on 25 July about a Mayday from the captain and an instruction to passengers to don life jackets, he said: "We have no such record." Read exactly, that is a denial about the captain's conduct, not about whether a signal reached the state — the government's own DPI release of 19 July records a distress call at about 23:01. On compensation his stated position was one of sequence: "The focus now is not on compensation. The focus is on recovering bodies, financing the burial and funeral rites…"

President Irfaan Ali

Ali was abroad in Canada at the time of the sinking and met families on his return. On 21 July he declared three days of national mourning. On 25 July he announced by video statement that he would, on 26 July, name a five-member Commission of Inquiry, describing it as independent and international and comprising "distinguished local and international experts" in law, marine engineering, maritime safety and disaster investigation, "carefully selected for their independence." The announced scope covers loading, boarding, on-board conditions, seaworthiness, maintenance history, legal compliance, the competence of master and crew, lifesaving arrangements, weather, and a review of the search-and-rescue response, and the commission is to be empowered to find negligence, misconduct, dereliction of duty or institutional failure.

8 August, and it is his whole answer to the resignation demands. Asked once more about Minister Edghill, Ali: "There is a CoI that I've established that is independent. And let the CoI work." The following day the Commission's chairman said it was "still in preparatory stages… for now we are still organising ourselves". The position is a deferral rather than a defence: it does not engage the substance of the demands, and it routes them into a body that on its own account had not begun. Separately, on 7 August, after fisherfolk told him that manipulated images and AI-generated video connected to the disaster had cut their sales, Ali directed the Attorney General to review whether penalties for deceptive synthetic content are adequate and announced a public education campaign. The outlet reporting it noted that the extent of the decline and its link to the posts "have not been independently established". {{SOURCES: 2026-08-08-guyana-times-mv-barima-tragedy-let-the-coi-work-president-ali | 2026-08-09-kaieteur-news-barima-coi-financial-relief-still-in-planning-stages | 2026-08-07-hgptv-fisherfolk-blame-false-mv-barima-posts-for-drop-in-sales }}

Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo

Jagdeo restated the toxicology findings on 22 July, saying blood had been drawn from rescued crew and two showed traces of marijuana.

Maritime Administration Department — Capt. Stephen Thomas, Director-General

On 22 July Thomas stated the vessel was "not overloaded," citing the load line, and that age is not determinative because modern thin steel is stronger. He gave the vessel's limits as 394 passengers and 126 tonnes on 21–22 July, and 394 passengers and 120 tonnes on 24–25 July. Asked when and on what basis the original 1938 rating of 150 passengers and 120 tonnes had been raised, he said: "I don't have that information." He also stated that weight distribution would need to be determined by the investigation.

On the mechanics of capsizing he stated that wind and wave action cause a vessel to heel, roll and pitch, that a vessel with positive stability returns upright even when pushed twenty degrees, and that "A captain, who may be compromised by whatever, would not be able to look at what is happening with the waves."

Then nothing on safety for a fortnight, and when the regulator next spoke in its own voice it was about procurement. MARAD's last substantive public statement on the vessel was 24 July. Between then and Friday 7 August it issued the salvage Expression of Interest — a procurement notice, published 1 August — and said nothing else. Its silence was on seaworthiness, not on everything, and the site said otherwise for part of one build. The department said "no individual, company, or entity has been selected to undertake the salvaging", that the Expression of Interest process began on 2 August, and that reports to the contrary were — in Kiskadee Watch's verbatim capture, a single lower-case sentence: "These reports are false and misleading and are designed to create public mischief." Kaieteur News and Village Voice News render the first half in capitals as "FALSE and MISLEADING"; both renderings are recorded and neither is spliced onto the other. The statement does not address the document at the centre of the allegation — a salvage proposal dated 28 July whose executive summary says the firm "has been invited by the Government of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, through the Maritime Administration Department". Selection and invitation are not the same act. Village Voice News noted independently on 9 August that MARAD's own Facebook page shows the notice issued on 1 August, a day earlier than the department's own statement gives. As of 14 August the regulator has said nothing about the leaked maintenance records, and nothing further about seaworthiness since 24 July. {{SOURCES: 2026-08-08-kaieteur-news-marad-says-no-firm-selected-as-yet-to-raise-mv-barima | 2026-08-08-guyana-chronicle-marad-rejects-misleading-claims-of-contractor-selection | 2026-08-09-village-voice-barima-salvage-controversy-deepens-as-marad-claims-clash-with-timeline-evidence | 2026-08-05-kaieteur-news-govt-secretly-invited-dutch-firm-to-lift-mv-barima-long-before-issuing-tender | 2026-08-08-kiskadee-watch-marad-says-no-company-chosen-for-mv-barima-salvaging }}

Charges, 28 July

Three Transport & Harbours Department employees — Captain Kevin Price, Chief Mate Rondell Dwayne Roberts and Goods Superintendent Delon Granderson — were jointly charged with murder contrary to common law on 28 July, on legal advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions. All three were remanded; the matter was transferred to the Charity Magistrate's Court and adjourned to 3 August 2026. On 3 August the three appeared by Zoom before Magistrate Ravindra Mohabir; the prosecutor, Mandel Moore, confirmed he holds a fiat, made partial disclosure and sought until 31 August to complete it, and the matter was adjourned to 7 September 2026. Single source for the hearing detail — the Grenada Chronicle; the adjournment date is also carried by CMC wire via the Jamaica Observer. All three are accused persons who have not been tried, and nothing on this page should be read as a finding against them.

Every person charged is an employee of the operator. No charge against any official of the Maritime Administration Department, any board member, or any minister appears in the corpus.

The number of counts is reported as 72 counts of murder in total, laid jointly against the three — not 72 each — by Times Caribbean of 28 July and by CMC, the Caribbean National Weekly, WIC News and HGPTV of 29 July. No Guyanese outlet reproducing the police or the DPP's release states any count; the figure reached circulation through court reporting and defence comment. What the counts correspond to was first explained by defence attorney Dexter Todd, recorded below; the charge particulars, published by Kaieteur News on 30 July, state that the three are alleged to have murdered 72 named victims at a stated position off Devonshire Castle. Contested Todd's account rests on 72 bodies recovered; every official figure from 24 to 29 July gave 73. Both are recorded and neither is preferred.

Director of Public Prosecutions, Shalimar Hack

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is a constitutionally independent office under Article 187, not subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority. The DPP's statement records that her office reviewed the Guyana Police Force file on the tragedy and advised the institution of the murder charges.

On 28 July Hack publicly defended that decision. On its basis she stated: "The decision to do so was based upon careful consideration of the evidence presented, the relevant principles of law involved, case law authorities from the United Kingdom, Commonwealth jurisdictions, the European Court of Human Rights, and public policy considerations." Demerara Waves states that she said this "without directly addressing the legal elements — intent and malice — of murder." HGPTV likewise records that the release did not explain how the elements of murder would be established.

On whether the prosecution and the Commission of Inquiry can run together she stated: "the business of this Commission of Inquiry will not affect the prosecution of the charge instituted; they can proceed simultaneously as was done in the cases of the piracy charges in the Berbice matter in 2018, and the fraud charges in the 2020 Regional and General Elections." She added: "Given the unprecedented magnitude of this matter, coupled with public interest factors, the prosecution will be conducted with due consideration of the work of the Commission of Inquiry."

Single source — an outlet's characterisation, not a statement by the DPP. The Demerara Waves lead of 28 July states that, in defending the charges, Hack "publicly stated that the vessel's navigational and safety systems were defective." That sentence is the reporting outlet's own characterisation. The article carries no quotation of the DPP saying it; iNews Guyana reproduces the same release at near-full length and contains no such statement; HGPTV omits it. It is recorded here as the outlet's wording and must not be read as an admission by the DPP that the vessel's systems were defective.

The wreck: the government's position and the families'

On 28 July the Prime Minister stated the vessel is "likely to remain there as is", that "I don't think we've contacted anybody to raise the vessel", that attempts to move it onto its keel had not succeeded, and that "it's obvious that bodies are trapped in the wreck." He said that additional divers "will not change the situation". A draft "Declaration of Agreement" circulated to families on 25 July asks them to accept that the vessel "remain undisturbed in its present resting place" as a "sacred memorial", with a monument bearing the victims' names. The Prime Minister described the letters as "just for discussion", and the President is reported as assuring families the decision "would solely depend on the wishes of the families".

Relatives, as reported by Kaieteur News, object. They state the proposal may wrap up salvage prematurely and may obscure physical evidence before the Commission of Inquiry can inspect the hull, and they want specialised international salvage firms engaged. One relative stated the matter "should be taken to Parliament or properly discussed with all the families." The archive takes no position on which course is right; both are recorded.

Demerara Waves of 28 July reports the government as willing to leave the vessel on the sea floor even if it holds useful evidence.

The stated position moved within twenty-four hours. On 29 July, after the Opposition Leader's public offer to fund a salvage (recorded below), Kaieteur News reports the government saying that victims' relatives will make the final decision on whether the vessel is raised or the wreck designated a memorial. The Prime Minister held a subsequent press conference at which, per the same report, he stated the government had received multiple salvage proposals, that "the wishes of the family are important at this stage", and that inquiries can proceed regardless of the salvage decision. He is also reported as conceding that international salvage companies were prepared to raise the vessel. The archive records the 28 July and 29 July positions as reported, without asserting a reason for the change.

Contested characterisation of the instrument circulated to families on 25 July. This page records it, as Kaieteur News does, as a draft "Declaration of Agreement". Denis Chabrol of Demerara Waves describes the same instrument as a questionnaire asking families to choose between salvage and a memorial. The difference is recorded rather than merged.

Not present in the corpus

No certificate of survey, load line or passenger capacity for this vessel appears in any source obtained. No official death toll appears — government releases report bodies recovered. As of 29 July the commissioners are on the record and three statutes have been named in connection with the commission, but no gazetted instrument, secretary or reporting deadline appears. Charges have now been laid against three employees of the operator and the Director of Public Prosecutions has publicly defended them; the particulars of the charge were published by Kaieteur News on 30 July, but no charge sheet and no official statement of the number of counts appears, and no charge against any official, regulator or minister appears. No MARAD advisory or notice to mariners, no Auditor General finding specific to the Transport & Harbours Department, and no statement by the International Maritime Organization appears.

Juan Edghill, Minister of Public Works

Edghill responded publicly to the resignation demands for the first time on 29 July, and declined to engage their substance. Asked about the calls: "I have repeatedly said I will speak about this matter at the appropriate time." Asked about the protests against him: "My life is in God's hands and that's not today." He did not address the disaster, the investigation or his ministry's responsibility. The demands have run since 21 July and now come from five opposition parties — WIN, APNU, FGM, V-PAC and AFC — and cover Minister Indar as well.

Prime Minister Phillips defends both ministers remaining in office, characterising the opposition's parliamentary protest as "irresponsible, reckless, childish, immature" and asserting that the inquiry is independent and its members internationally selected.

The Amerindian Peoples Association — from statement to street

The APA's written demand for Edghill's removal has been on the record since 23 July. On 29 July members and supporters picketed the Office of the President, demanding accountability for the disaster and the removal of both Edghill and Indar.

The picket first reached this archive from two Guyanese news accounts' social media posts — Sheriff News Network and Prime News Guyana — and an earlier build recorded that no press report of it appeared in this corpus. That is no longer true and the note is withdrawn. Kaieteur News, News Room, Kiskadee Watch and Demerara Waves all carry it, retrieved on 30 July. They give crowd sizes of "roughly 100" and "over a hundred", placards reading "Indigenous Lives Matter", "Edghill and Indar Must Go", "Stop treating our first people as an afterthought" and "We deserve safe passage home", and named speakers. Single source Kiskadee also records a protester, Andrew Campbell, calling for the resignation of a third minister, Minister of Amerindian Affairs Sarah Browne.

The defence

The three men charged on 28 July have not been tried. Nothing in this section is a finding, and the archive takes no view on their guilt or innocence. What follows is what their counsel, and one of the accused, have said publicly.

Nigel Hughes

Hughes, attorney-at-law, warned on 28 July that the murder charges could silence key witnesses before the Commission of Inquiry. He described the charges as a "most perverse attempt at distraction" and argued that the offence requires proof of intention: "A charge of murder requires that the accused had the intention to kill his victim." He said the prosecution would have to establish that the accused held that intention when the vessel departed or formed it during the voyage. On the effect on the inquiry he asked: "Could it be that the real intention here is [that], the accused having been charged with murder, would not be able to testify before the COI, as any testimony at the COI can be used against them at the criminal trial?" He added: "Perhaps we have the unique ability to compound what is a tragedy of epic proportions into additional manifest injustice by the institution of murder charges, thereby silencing key witnesses before the COI."

The three men may hold information about the passenger count, the cargo, the loading process and the vessel's condition; now charged, they may be advised to exercise the right against self-incrimination and decline to answer the commission. HGPTV, which carried the remarks, states directly that the suggested motive "remains Hughes's stated concern" and that no evidence has been presented to establish that prosecutors filed the charges to prevent testimony. It also notes that the prosecution has not publicly detailed the evidence supporting the charges or the legal theory on which they rest.

Darren Wade

Demerara Waves reports that on 28 July attorneys Nigel Hughes and Darren Wade jointly raised grave concerns about the weakness of the murder charges, and about the implications and the motive of those charges for the Commission of Inquiry. Wade is named as raising those concerns; no direct quotation of him appears in the corpus.

Dexter Todd

Todd, who appears for the three accused, calls the charges "holding charges" and states that the police acted before the investigation was complete: "These are holding charges. The police have rushed to lay indictments before assembling all the necessary evidence, and in doing so, they risk compromising the work of the very Commission of Inquiry meant to uncover the truth." He states that the state moved to institute capital charges before a technical investigation or the promised inquiry had begun to hear evidence, and that "The complexity of this matter, you could not have completed an investigation in this matter in such a short time."

On the prosecution's stated theory, which he gives as overloading, he asks: "How can you charge men with murder based on overloading when you do not even have an accurate calculation of the cargo weight or a completed manifest?" He sets that theory against the Minister of Public Works' public statement that the vessel was not overloaded. On the inquiry he states that the men now face capital trials and that their ability to testify may be severely restricted by the privilege against self-incrimination.

Todd is also the single origin of the derivation of the 72 counts. Quoted by CMC and the Caribbean National Weekly he states: "We know so far that the disclosure is that 72 bodies were recovered and so they were charged for all 72 of those deaths." Single source — it is defence counsel's account of the prosecution's disclosure rather than an official statement, and it remains the only published explanation of why the number is 72. What the counts correspond to is no longer single-sourced: Kaieteur News published the charge particulars on 30 July, and they allege the murder of 72 named victims. Contested — Todd's account rests on 72 bodies recovered, against the 73 given in every official figure from 24 to 29 July. Both are recorded and neither is preferred.

Captain Kevin Price, in court

Kaieteur News of 29 July reports what the captain said as he was escorted in handcuffs into the Georgetown Magistrates' Court, where the charges were read on 28 July. He wept, and cried out: "I ain't deserve this father God, I want you to answer my prayers here this morning father God, I ain't deserve this father God." The report is headlined on the words "we don't deserve this". He said the vessel was old — "Everybody knows is an old vessel the government give me to wuk, 87 years old is that vessel" — and that it was unfit to sail and "had a lot of issues": "The vessel had a lot of issues, the vessel anchor ain't wuking, the vessel radar, we don't have a radar, the vessel don't have a search and rescue transponder, the vessel don't have an EPIRB." On the life rafts he said: "Those life rafts expired since 2022, and Maritime did an inspection and did not write off that vessel."

These are recorded strictly as statements made by an accused person on his way into court, speaking publicly for the first time since the sinking. They are untested, no source in the corpus corroborates them against the vessel's inspection or certification records — none of which the archive holds — and nothing in them is treated here as established.

A former captain of the vessel

Andrew Donald

Single source throughout this entry. HGPTV published on 29 July an account by Andrew Donald, who states he commanded the MV Barima during twelve years at the Transport & Harbours Department. Until 30 July no other outlet in the corpus carried him; Kiskadee Watch has since published the same account at greater length, which corroborates the report without supplying a second witness, since both rest on Donald. The account originates in a Facebook post of 29 July by MP Ganesh Mahipaul carrying Donald's statement, and so reaches the record through social media rather than through an outlet's own interview. The image attached to that post carries Meta's own "AI-generated content" label and must not be treated as a photograph. HGPTV states that Donald's claims "have not been independently verified" and that he "did not identify the individuals allegedly responsible."

On the vessel, Donald describes it as a single-hull passenger vessel and alleges that it operated contrary to standards contained in the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. He states it lacked hull tanks capable of containing incoming water and had no operational bilge system powerful enough to control serious flooding, and that in the event of an underwater breach the crew might have had only five to ten minutes to act. He wrote: "The Barima was not supposed to be in service", and describes it as "a floating disaster waiting to occur". HGPTV qualifies that whether those international requirements applied to this vessel, and whether it complied with the relevant domestic rules, "remain matters for technical and legal determination." Donald dismisses the focus on whether dry-docking was overdue, arguing the problems were more fundamental than the repair schedule; Minister Edghill's position on the record is that the vessel was last dry-docked in 2024 and was scheduled for its next docking in the second half of 2026.

On loading, he alleges that captains routinely faced pressure from wharf employees, business owners and Transport & Harbours Department managers over how much cargo vessels accepted and when they departed; that management asserted control when operations proceeded normally and withdrew when problems arose; that he had ordered the cargo hold closed and secured, after which telephone calls followed seeking to have more cargo accepted; and that captains faced attempted bribes and threats of transfer, suspension or dismissal when they resisted. He wrote: "Every voyage was a never-ending war with management."

On responsibility he states: "I blame T&HD and its subject ministers." He describes the three charged men as scapegoats who "do not deserve to be treated like this", and calls for public examination of the vessel's safety certificates, inspection history, loading records, dry-docking schedule, passenger and cargo limits, freeboard and draft, together with crew qualifications, the passage plan and the condition of emergency equipment.

His account bears on who exercised practical control over loading. HGPTV sets it against what it describes as government officials' previous statements — that the loading superintendent managed activity on the waterfront while the captain and chief mate retained final authority to reject passengers or cargo — and observes that Donald's allegations suggest a captain's formal authority may have been undermined by institutional and commercial pressure. Both accounts are recorded; the archive does not adjudicate between them.

Parliamentary opposition

A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)

Through MP Campbell, APNU's stated position is that the 65-seat National Assembly should craft the commission's terms of reference and that representatives of the International Maritime Organization should be included. Campbell has characterised the President's announcement as "a deliberate ploy to avoid parliamentary debate." On 24 July APNU tabled a Standing Order 12 motion which would empower a commission to summon witnesses, compel documents and refer criminal charges. APNU also called for the parliamentary agenda to be suspended to address the disaster.

Through MP Saiku Andrews, APNU has demanded funeral assistance of no less than G$1m per victim, against reports that some families were offered "a mere $300,000" for funeral expenses. Andrews also cited the March 2026 tender bill of quantities, which required examination of approximately 10,000 square metres of hull plating and frames "with deteriorated sections to be renewed where necessary."

APNU MP Sherod Duncan was arrested on 21 July over an unlicensed drone at Charity, where sources report he had been showing it to Warrao children.

WIN — Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed

Mohamed objects to not being consulted on the commission. His stated demands are that Ministers Edghill and Indar be recused and compelled to testify, that hearings be livestreamed, that the full report be published — noting that prior commission reports were not — and that investigators of a calibre he compared to the FBI or Scotland Yard be appointed. He is also moving a no-confidence motion against Edghill, and states that loading orders come from senior officials rather than from the staff carrying out loading. Sources record him spending four days at sea assisting the recovery. On the death toll he said only that "it looks like over 100." WIN MP Sweatnam has said "over one hundred persons dead," and WIN MP Deon La Cruz reported that survivors had received no welfare contact from any government representative.

On the wreck. On 29 July Mohamed publicly offered to fund the raising of the vessel himself, conditional on government authorisation: "Give me permission and I will raise it." The offer is reported by both Kaieteur News and HGPTV. He states he has "engaged international partners who have assured me they have the equipment, expertise, and capability to bring the MV Barima to the surface"; calls the prospect of leaving the vessel on the sea floor "premature and wicked" and "an act of cruelty" to grieving families; and states that "families have reached out to me saying they want the bodies of their loved ones, even if all that remain are bones." He argues that recovering the vessel would supply physical evidence to the Commission of Inquiry. HGPTV records that no engineering proposal supporting the offer has been published, and that any lifting operation would require technical specifications, regulatory clearance, specialised equipment and safeguards while preserving the vessel as evidence. The government's stated position on the wreck moved within twenty-four hours of the offer; that shift is recorded above.

Alliance For Change (AFC)

The AFC proposed constituting the inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, Chapter 19:03. Kiskadee Watch of 27 July reports the commission was appointed under Section 2(1) of that Act, so the AFC's proposal and the provision reported as used are consistent. Christopher Ram has since named a third statute, Part XVIII of the Shipping Act, and disputes the basis used; that position is recorded under named commentators. No instrument has been gazetted.

Joint position of five opposition parties

WIN, APNU, FGM, AFC and VPAC have jointly stated that a Commission of Inquiry is not a substitute for a marine casualty investigation under SOLAS, the IMO Casualty Investigation Code and the IMO Model Regulations on Domestic Ferry Safety, and that both processes should run. They also object to the timing of the announcement, made immediately before the scheduled parliamentary debate, and to the appointment of the Commission's Secretary.

A Partnership for National Unity — Aubrey Norton, 1 August

Single source At APNU's weekly press conference on Friday 31 July, reported 1 August, the PNCR chairman and APNU leader put the charging decision in the sharpest terms recorded here: the murder charges against the captain, chief mate and goods superintendent are "ridiculous, vindictive, and intended to silence the workers", and the surviving crew are being scapegoated. (The report's own framing is that the scapegoating shields government officials; the words attributed to Norton are the quoted ones.) He states that nothing publicly shown "proves that these men deliberately intended to kill passengers". These are an opposition leader's assertions about a live prosecution. This archive adopts none of them, and the three men are charged and untried.

His accountability questions run upward: "Who allowed a government vessel with defective systems to sail? Who certified it? Who supervised its maintenance?" He demands publication of the complete cargo manifests, weight certificates, maintenance reports, surveillance recordings and inspection certificates, and — new to this corpus — that the state identify which ministries owned the cargo aboard. He alleges that normal inspection procedures broke down before departure and that the vessel was kept in service against professional advice; neither is corroborated here. He repeats the demand that Ministers Edghill and Indar resign.

The Government — a second investigative body, 1 August

President Ali establishes a Safety and Compliance Audit Team to review the safety and compliance standards governing marine vessels in Guyana: Dr Ivor English, a former Director-General of MARAD, as leader; Colonel Julius Skeete of the Guyana Defence Force; and Captain Joseph Lewis, Marine Officer and Surveyor of Ships. Ali, quoted: the team will "examine compliance with applicable maritime safety requirements and make recommendations to strengthen oversight, improve enforcement and ensure that our vessels, operators and regulatory systems meet the highest practicable standards of safety and accountability." Carried by both Kaieteur News and Guyana Times.

Its remit is prospective and general rather than directed at the Barima. As with the Commission of Inquiry before it, no deadline, no budget, no terms of reference published as a document and no undertaking to publish appear in either report, and nothing states how the two bodies relate. It is established by presidential directive; no statutory basis is stated.

An argument for the parallel proceedings, 1 August

Single source Kaieteur News's "Peeping Tom" column is the first sustained published defence of running the Commission of Inquiry alongside the prosecution. It distinguishes their purposes — systemic fact-finding against individual guilt beyond reasonable doubt — and argues that the Commissions of Inquiry Act already contains provisions protecting witnesses from self-incrimination, so that "Parliament understood that a Commission's proceedings could potentially intersect with other legal proceedings." It warns that delaying prosecution risks evidence deterioration, fading memory and lost documents, and cites the South Korean MV Sewol disaster of 2014 as precedent. It is an opinion column carrying the newspaper's disclaimer, and this archive holds no text of the Act against which to check its central claim.

The Government — the wreck, 1–2 August

The memorial proposal is abandoned, and the state has not said so. On 1 August MARAD, under the Ministry of Public Utilities and Aviation, invited expressions of interest from marine salvage contractors to recover the vessel, closing 14 August. The notice states the evidential purpose in the state's own words: bidders must show how they will protect "forensic evidence for the ongoing Commission of Inquiry". It gives the wreck's position, a depth of 13–15 metres, and requires "no cure, no pay" terms; MARAD reserves the right to cancel the process.

What is absent from that is the position itself. No government statement in this corpus acknowledges that the memorial plan — put to bereaved families in writing on 25 July — has been dropped, gives a reason, or mentions it at all. The only account of why is Kaieteur News's: "mounting pressure from stakeholders across Guyana". The change of position is therefore recorded here as an inference from a procurement document, which is what it is.

A Partnership for National Unity — the salvage timetable, 2 August

Single source APNU MP Ganesh Mahipaul accepts the decision and attacks the pace. He argues the expression-of-interest route means salvage cannot begin before late August or early September: "That timeline is simply unacceptable." He calls for emergency procurement instead of a competitive process, and argues that the evidential value the notice exists to protect is decaying while the process runs — "Salt water is unforgiving. Mechanical systems corrode, electronic equipment deteriorates…" He also criticises the rejection of the Opposition Leader's offer to fund a salvage privately at no cost to the taxpayer.

WIN states that the delay leaves families waiting for "answers and closure they deserve". No government response to either party appears in this corpus.

Former minister David Patterson

Patterson has alleged that expert procurement advice was disregarded. This claim is made after the disaster and is not corroborated elsewhere in the corpus.

On 31 July this entry stopped being a single line. The corpus took in an hour-long broadcast interview of 30 July on OGGN Oil Talk, hosted by Janette Bulkan, in which Patterson — AFC shadow minister for public works and a former holder of the ministry — set out a connected position. It is summarised here because he is the only person to speak at length in this corpus who has held the ministry these vessels sit under, and because several of his statements bear on questions this archive has recorded as open. Everything below is Single source unless stated, and it reaches this archive through a machine-generated caption track rather than a publisher's transcript — the capture and its limitations are described on the method page. Two of his statements do touch documents already held here, and that is said where it arises: the certification account runs with the annual-survey convention Capt. Adams described in 2015, and the equipment allegations he relays are the captain's own, made in court on 29 July and carried by three outlets. Nothing else in it is corroborated anywhere in this corpus.

On certification. He treats an annual certification as routine and asks "how can you say you don't have the registration certificate of a document… but you are certifying it every year," likening it to annual vehicle fitness certification and stating that speed boats and cargo boats renew licences at MARAD each year, while conceding a survey "may not check every single item."

On the operator. The Transport and Harbours Department "has not turned a profit since… 2007 or 2009," and has not been officially audited by the Auditor General's office since "most likely I think 2005, 2006."

On the powers that existed. He cites Cap. 49:07 s. 18 as giving inspectors of shipping powers to board, inspect machinery and equipment, examine certificates, "prevent overloaded vessels from sailing" and detain an unfit vessel, removing excess cargo or passengers. Millington's submission, recorded below, reads s. 3 of the same Act as disapplying Part I to ships in the service of the State. Whether those two readings conflict turns on which Part s. 18 sits in, and this archive holds neither text.

On the effect of the charges. He argues the murder charges will hollow out the Commission because the operator's management will also decline to answer — the marine superintendent, the chief engineer, "nor would the general manager of transport and harbours" — leaving "circumstantial" and "he say, she say" evidence; and predicts that "every captain now on any one of these vessels… may refuse to work."

On information control. Asked by Bulkan why briefings came from the Prime Minister and the ministry rather than the professional staff of the Maritime Search and Rescue Coordination Centre, he answers that the government "by default they clamp down on information" and "like to control the entire information space," and describes the alternative — all agencies in one room, one verified set of figures, a designated liaison briefing families at short regular intervals. He states search and rescue was coordinated under the Civil Defence Commission.

On the route. He argues for separating cargo barges from passenger ferries, describes a dedicated weekly fuel barge to Region One and a bar on construction and mining cargo aboard passenger vessels under his own policy, describes an additional inspectorate layer he says he instituted to double-check passengers and cargo and to stop ticket touting, and argues for short crossings from Charity or Supenaam rather than 18-to-24-hour voyages. He argues against "treating the indigenous communities as byproducts."

What he relays and this archive does not adopt. He repeats the captain's reported account of a non-functioning anchor, no search-and-rescue transponder, no EPIRB and life rafts uncertified for four years. That is the account of a man charged with murder and not tried, relayed at second hand. It is not adopted here and bears on nothing about his guilt.

Civil society organisations

Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA)

The GHRA rejects executive appointment of the commission and has published an alternative design: a parliamentary commission with equal government and opposition membership, chaired by a judicially qualified figure preferably from elsewhere in the Caribbean and endorsed by the other commissioners, with a statutory duty of candour on officials, state-funded counsel for bereaved families, and the chair rather than the executive controlling any claim of national security. It warns that parliamentarians endorsing an inquiry it regards as tainted risk misconduct in public office. Contested membership: Kaieteur reports a seven-member commission; Demerara Waves reports six, appointed equally.

Amerindian Peoples Association (APA)

The APA has called for Minister Edghill's removal, states that North West District passengers had complained for years, and has described the situation as "a tragedy waiting to happen." It frames ferry provision as a question of inequity rather than accident, and has demanded a parallel review of Guyana's entire river and sea transport system with mandatory consultation of Indigenous and riverain communities.

National Toshaos Council (NTC)

The NTC has urged a "comprehensive, transparent, independent review." Sources record that it postponed its conference by one day and that the gathering became a venue for mourning. Village leaders raised schooling for affected children, orphan relief and longer-term economic support.

Indigenous and hinterland community leaders

Distinct from the Amerindian Peoples Association's institutional call, two community leaders have called for Minister Edghill's resignation in their own names, reported by Kaieteur News on 27 July.

Kako Toshao Romario Hastings, in a statement titled "Thoughts on the Barima Tragedy, Part 1", states: "To say this tragedy should not be political is to ignore the very forces that helped shape it. Politics determined who was appointed to lead the department and the ministry responsible for the service." On silence among his peers: "Politics determines the fear many Toshaos feel about speaking honestly, not because they do not care, but because they know the cost of challenging power. Yet every time accountability is traded for access, our people ultimately pay the greater price." And: "if I were the Minister of Public Works, I would have resigned."

Chris Debideen, Chairman of the Aruau Community Development Council, who states he lost two relatives, wrote an open letter to President Ali calling for modern vessels. He states: "Our people deserve better means of transportation, modernised boats, not a set of old boats." On the response time: "Imagine the time that the boat sinks and the time [rescuers] respond." He argues a double standard between local and central government: "If it was one of us as a CDC Chairman or Toshao, let's say by mismanagement of leadership, they would replace somebody else with it, and that is right… These are not animals you are dealing with." He also criticised party conduct during the rescue, saying he hoped the parties "could have come together and work cooperatively in terms of rescuing these people instead of bashing each other."

Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. (TIGI) and Rescue Guyana

Both have called for an IMO-led investigation rather than a domestically appointed commission. On 25 July the Prime Minister addressed that demand: "If contacting the International Maritime Organization will help in this inquiry, we will do it. We will contact all the agencies that will help in ensuring that the Guyanese people view this inquiry as an independent inquiry."

Shipping Association of Guyana (SAG)

In a statement on 26 July the association welcomed the President's decision to establish the commission, saying: "We believe this investigation is an important step toward establishing the facts surrounding this devastating tragedy, providing answers to the affected families, and strengthening maritime safety for the future." It also thanked the agencies and volunteers involved in the search and recovery.

Detentions at the national prayer service

Three women were detained at the government's national prayer service on 22 July. Per the activists' own subsequent statement, charges were dropped and an apology was given, and a constitutional action under Article 147 is being weighed. No police or government statement on the incident appears in the corpus.

Named commentators

Capt. R. E. W. Adams, master mariner, writing in Stabroek News on 2 October 2015, named the MV Barima directly, cited a Kaieteur News inspection describing its deck, winch and generator area as "a mass of junk and rust," and argued that such a vessel would be barred from sea or scrapped elsewhere in the Caribbean. He attributed the condition to missed dry-docking rather than to age.

Janette Bulkan, in letters published by Kaieteur News, has asked the Maritime Search and Rescue Coordination Centre to publish the rescue timeline, and asked at what times the Mayday was relayed to Exxon offshore supply vessels, the Omni Helicopters base at Ogle, the police boat near the Pomeroon mouth, the Coast Guard and MARAD's Ocean Pilot boats. She states the vessel became stuck on a mudbank offshore of Iron Punt, asks whether a Pan Pan urgency call was issued between 19:00 and 23:00, and states that Guyana acceded to SOLAS on 10 December 1997, effective 10 March 1998. These are single-source claims. She also compares the response with Suriname's after the 2018 killing of seventeen fishers.

Janette Bulkan, as interviewer of a former minister, 30 July. Bulkan appears elsewhere in this archive as the author of the 25 July letter setting out unanswered rescue-timeline questions. On the same broadcast she puts two things on the record in her own voice. First, the arithmetic of the rescue gap, from the Prime Minister's own account: the first rescue "took place at 27 minutes past 2 on Sunday, that's more than 3 hours later," the vessel down some seven to ten miles from shore, and she asks what is to be made of "two and a half hours, no rescue." (Her two intervals do not agree — from the 23:01 signal, 02:27 is three hours twenty-six minutes — and both are quoted here because both were said; see finding 15 on the analysis page.) Second, a wider missing range than any other source here — "probably between 30 and 50. We still do not know how many persons are unaccounted for" — recorded on the figures page as a divergence and not adopted. She also relays MP Amanza Walton-Desir's argument that a marine safety investigation under SOLAS and the IMO is mandatory, cannot be substituted by a Commission of Inquiry, and must be independent of a state that is regulator, certifying authority, inspecting authority and operator at once, so that it "must be capable of commanding public confidence" — which corroborates the joint opposition objection recorded above.

The Kaieteur News "Peeping Tom" column of 27 July, "Should Minister Edghill resign?", is the only sustained argument against resignation in the corpus, and is recorded here alongside the demands. It argues that few making the demand have stated its basis; that under individual ministerial responsibility the Minister is not culpable for the Transport & Harbours Department's operational faults, the Department having its own board, and that a minister's duty is "to set policy direction and secure parliamentary funding, not to supervise the loading of cargo or verify passenger manifests on a daily basis". It proposes that political accountability be tested by objective indicators — whether the President and Cabinet have withdrawn support, whether the National Assembly still accepts the Minister's explanations, and whether non-partisan public trust has been lost — rather than by the volume of opposition demands. It states the cause is not yet established, that "a minister cannot resign for an act of God", and that it is best to await the inquiry. It argues for consistency by reference to the 2017 Camp Street prison fire, in which eighteen prisoners died and a government commission found a "well executed plan" enabled by overcrowding and inadequate oversight, after which the responsible minister faced no serious expectation of resignation. The column carries the newspaper's disclaimer that the views are the author's.

Christopher Ram, chartered accountant and attorney, published an open letter to President Ali reported by Kaieteur News on 28 July, arguing that the Commission of Inquiry dodges the key issues. His stated objection is that the terms of reference concentrate almost exclusively on the voyage of 18 July while sidestepping the policy decisions that preceded it: "Your commission will inquire exhaustively into a voyage without asking why that voyage was made in that vessel at all." He states that the newly acquired MV Kalliopi N arrived in Guyana in May and had been designated by Minister Edghill for the Region One route, but remained tied up awaiting commissioning while the 1939-built Barima continued to carry passengers, and he asks why the MV Ma Lisha, commissioned in 2023, never replaced the Barima on the North West route. "None of this was misfortune. These were decisions… Nothing in your Terms of Reference permits the commission to examine them."

Ram argues that the commission should have been constituted under Part XVIII of the Shipping Act, which he describes as providing for a statutory marine investigation chaired by a sitting judge or magistrate with power to compel evidence and to suspend or revoke maritime certificates where negligence is found, and he questions the legal basis on which it was in fact constituted. This is the third statute named in the corpus in connection with the commission, alongside the AFC's proposal of the Commission of Inquiry Act, Cap. 19:03 and Kiskadee Watch's report that Section 2(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act was used; see the table below. Nothing has been gazetted, so none of the three can be checked against an instrument. Ram also calls for Minister Edghill and MARAD's Director-General to step aside while the inquiry proceeds and to testify before it, and for all documents relating to the Barima — maintenance records, surveys, manifests, inspection reports and the files on the Kalliopi N and Ma Lisha — to be secured against alteration or destruction.

A contrary reading of the same Part is now on the record and is set out below under the submitted expert analysis: that Part XVIII confers a power and not a duty and so could not have compelled anything, that the 1883 Act excludes State ships by its own terms, and that the general Commissions of Inquiry Act was consequently the only route available. The two positions are recorded and neither is preferred.

Haseef Yusuf, in a letter to Guyana Times, argues that age is not the same as unseaworthiness, cites spending between 2021 and 2024, and describes the tragedy as being worked as "a potential ballot winner."

The Guyana Times editorial of 21 July argues for compassion first and accountability afterwards, through an independent inquiry.

The Kaieteur News editorial calls for a livestreamed inquiry and an unredacted preliminary report within ninety days.

Dr. Karen Abrams published "What the oil boom owes the hinterland" in Kaieteur News on 21 June 2026, four weeks before the sinking.

GHK Lall and the anonymous author of the Demerara Waves "Perspective" column of 22 July, headlined "Built for 1939, sunk in 2026: the MV Barima and the contempt we reserve for our own people," both argue that the vessel's retention reflected official disregard for hinterland communities.

A submitted expert analysis

Robert C. Millington

What it is, and how this page treats it. On 29 July 2026 Robert C. Millington submitted to this archive a 253-page analysis of the Guyanese maritime statute book, titled The MV Barima and the Maritime Statute Book of Guyana, offered as an aid to the Commission of Inquiry. It is held and published in full. It is the only document in this corpus that is neither journalism, nor a state release, nor a social media post, and it is labelled as a submitted analysis wherever it appears on this site. Everything in this section is his position, attributed to him and not adopted by this archive, and marked Single source because it rests on his document alone.

His stated qualifications. Retired United States Navy naval officer; former licensed United States Coast Guard Merchant Marine Deck Officer, Unlimited Tonnage; former First Class Ship Pilot, Unlimited Tonnage; Bachelor of Science in Marine Transportation, State University of New York Maritime College at Fort Schuyler; thirty-nine years in the military, maritime and logistics sectors. He states that he is not admitted to practise law in Guyana or in any other jurisdiction and that nothing in the document is legal advice.

What he says it is not. Not an accident investigation — he states he has no access to the wreck, the certificates, the stability book, the manifest or any witness. Not a submission that any particular provision was breached. Not a criticism of the individuals who administer the Guyanese maritime system. It makes no finding of fact, and every person charged, detained, suspended or named in it is expressly presumed innocent. Where the public record conflicts he reproduces the conflict and attributes each version without choosing.

Statutory basis of the work. Statutory text read directly from the authorised Laws of Guyana, Revised Edition, as authorised by L.R.O. 1/2012: Cap. 49:01 (Guyana Shipping Act), Cap. 49:04 (Transport and Harbours Act), Cap. 49:07 (Shipping Casualties (Investigation and Prevention) Act 1883), Cap. 50:01 (River Navigation Act 1891) and Cap. 47:01. His own stated limitation, which he discloses rather than conceals: that consolidation is current only to 2012, so every finding of his expressed as the absence of a regulation is subject to verification against post-2012 instruments and the Official Gazette; and he could not verify Guyana's accession status instrument by instrument against the IMO Status of Conventions table, which he lists as his first verification priority.

His stated positions, in summary. Each is his; the fuller treatment of those that bear on the figures and the open questions is on the figures page and the questions page.

• The 24-metre gap. At 40.26 m the vessel was above 24 metres, so the Small Commercial Ship Safety Regulations (Reg. 5 of 2005) did not apply; because she was a passenger ship, the Cargo Ship Survey Regulations (Reg. 6 of 2005) excluded her by the words "except passenger ships." She "fell squarely inside the band and was removed from it by five words."
• No counting duty of the operative kind exists. SOLAS III/27 requires persons aboard to be counted before departure; Cap. 49:01 s. 398(1)(b) is an enabling power with, he records, no regulations made under it. "The discrepancy between 133 and 179 is therefore not, on the face of the statute book, a breach of any counting duty — because no counting duty exists." His second submission of 3 August adds a provision that looks like an exception and is not: Cap. 49:03 s. 7(1) requires the master to declare in writing the number, names, sex and age of every person on board before clearance, with a year's imprisonment for a false declaration. That is a customs pre-clearance paper, not a headcount reconciled and lodged ashore; the same document repeats that the s. 398(1)(b) power was never exercised, and still proposes creating a duty of passenger accounting. It also records that the form the declaration depends on has not been identified.
• The load line cannot answer the overloading question, and the fault for that is in the statute rather than in the regulator: it measures reserve buoyancy and is "entirely indifferent to where that weight is," and "a regulator with a load line and nothing else will use the load line."
• The owner is the regulator. Cap. 49:01 s. 3(3) construes any reference to an owner of a Government ship as a reference to the Director, so "the person who must report is the person to whom the report is made"; the same Director appoints the assessors to a Board of formal investigation and receives its report.
• Accountability reaches only certificate holders. Cap. 49:01 s. 429(3) permits only cancellation or suspension of a certificate, or censure of its holder. No finding is available against a company, a Department, a Ministry, MARAD, the Director or any uncertificated person, and the Transport and Harbours Department "cannot commit an offence under the Act, because the Act creates none capable of being committed by a Department." His conclusion: "the small man is the only person the law can reach."
• The Superintendent of Loading does not exist in law — his Deficiency 62. The office the Minister publicly identified as responsible for inspection and loading is "not created by, named in, or given any duty by" any of the four Acts. He notes that one of the three men charged on 28 July is described as the Goods or Loading Superintendent, and presumes his innocence.
• Neither casualty-investigation regime could lawfully be used. Cap. 49:01 Part XVIII (1998) gives a power and not a duty, with "no threshold, no trigger, no time limit, no duty to publish"; Cap. 49:07 Part I (1883) is disapplied by its own s. 3 to any ship belonging to or in the service of the State. He therefore states that the Commission of Inquiry correctly sits under the general Commissions of Inquiry Act, and that this is "the clearest possible proof of the deficiency." That position is set against Christopher Ram's, recorded above, which is that Part XVIII should have been used.
• The IMO Casualty Investigation Code, mandatory under SOLAS XI-1/6 since 1 January 2010, is unimplemented in Guyana in every respect on his account: no mandatory investigation, no independence, no separation from blame attribution, no protection for witness evidence, no duty to publish, no submission to the IMO. He states the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre has no statutory existence and that the SAR Convention 1979 is unimplemented.
• The penalties are inverted. Submerging a load line, s. 319: $100,000. Fraudulently altering draught marks, Cap. 49:04 s. 46: $48,750. No stability information, s. 290(3): $10,000. Sending a ship to sea so unseaworthy that life is likely to be endangered, s. 337 via s. 444(1): $25,000 and six months, with a "reasonable and justifiable" defence available. "A vessel loaded one centimetre too deep attracts four times the fine of a vessel sent to sea in a condition likely to kill everyone aboard."
• The 1891 river law is more demanding than the 1998 sea law: annual inspection, branded waterlines, a certificated maximum number of persons painted on both bows, one lifebelt per certificated person, a count entered in a book before departure, a prohibition on taking anyone aboard after reporting, and reg. 19(1) of 1918 permitting one passenger per five square feet of deck excluding deck cargo. He states these apply on the Barima River and the Kaituma Creek but not on the sea passage between them and Georgetown. He also records Cap. 50:01 s. 14 (1998) as the only mandatory enforcement duty in the whole statute book.
• The statute still points at the United Kingdom. Cap. 49:07 s. 5(4) requires a court of inquiry's report to be transmitted to "the Board of Trade of the Government of the United Kingdom," as amended in 1998; and reg. 13(3) of the Coasting and Passenger Trade Regulations sets a coasting vessel's permitted number of passengers by reference to a Board of Trade survey.
• Ten recommended reforms, which he states require no new Act because the regulation-making powers already exist — among them a domestic passenger vessel safety code for all vessels of 24 metres and over based on the IMO Model Regulations on Domestic Ferry Safety; a published maximum number of persons marked on the vessel; a duty to count every person at embarkation; prescribed content for stability information; an independent permanent multi-modal Transport Safety Board reporting to Parliament; repeal of s. 3(3); repeal of the "reasonable and justifiable" defence; accession to the Athens Convention 2002 Protocol; dealing with Cap. 49:04 s. 23 before 18 January 2027; and a Maritime Search and Rescue Act.
• The deficiency count is 87 numbered deficiencies plus 20 unnumbered structural items: 42 critical, 29 high, 11 medium, 3 low and 2 urgent-time.

Where he conflicts with this archive. He gives the distress signal as 22:43, against the 23:01 this archive carries from the Department of Public Information and the BBC, and states that the signal reached an aviation authority at 22:43 and took twenty minutes, through two intermediaries, to reach the maritime rescue authority. The conflict and the possible reconciliation are recorded on the figures page; this archive has not resolved it and continues to carry 23:01.

Where he corrects himself. The document records two corrections to his own earlier drafts: that framing the owner-regulator problem as a single-ministry fusion of operator and regulator was wrong, because MARAD and the Transport and Harbours Department sit under different Ministers, so the defect is narrower and lies inside the office of the Director; and that an earlier draft recorded the text of Cap. 49:07 as unobtainable, which has since been resolved.

Claudette Rogers, Director General of MARAD, 27 March 2019

Single source This entry reaches the archive only through the Millington submission, which reproduces the statement. The archive does not hold the original, has not verified it against contemporaneous 2019 reporting, and records it here for that reason as a position attributed at one remove. It is recorded at all because, if accurately reported, it is a regulator's own account of the state of Guyana's maritime law seven years before this casualty, and therefore cannot have been shaped by it. Millington calls it the most significant single item of institutional evidence in his document.

On 27 March 2019 the then Director General of the Maritime Administration Department is recorded as stating publicly:

• that although Guyana has ratified the main international maritime conventions, "the requisite regulations need to be enacted or put in place because the country follows the common law system";
• that the IMO Member State Audit of Guyana was completed in 2018, and that one necessary measure arising directly from that audit was "the enacting of regulations to give full and complete effect to the conventions which Guyana has ratified";
• that Professor Duke Pollard, a retired Judge of the Caribbean Court of Justice, had been retained to update Guyana's maritime legislation and had completed the assignment, with recommendations expressly directed at eliminating conflicts among agencies as to where responsibility for key maritime functions resides;
• and that Guyana had not ratified the STCW 95 amendments while Guyanese surveyors were issuing certificates on that basis, which she described as a significant breach of international maritime law.

Four documents the submission says would answer the Commission's institutional question, and which he states all exist. The IMO Member State Audit report on Guyana; Guyana's corrective action plan arising from it; the progress reports on that plan's implementation; and the Pollard report and recommendations. None appears in this corpus. This archive has not established that any of them exists, states no view on whether they can be obtained, and records the list because it is the only place in the corpus where named, dated, contemporaneous institutional documents are identified rather than inferred.

Standards and instruments cited by the parties

These are named in the corpus by the parties above. This archive does not assess whether any of them was complied with.

Three statutes are in circulation in connection with the commission. No instrument has been gazetted, so which was used cannot be verified from any document in the corpus. Every entry attributed to Robert C. Millington above is his reading of an instrument this archive does not hold, taken from a submitted analysis rather than from a record, and subject to his own stated limitation that the consolidation is current only to L.R.O. 1/2012.

Status of the Commission of Inquiry, as at 31 July 2026

On Sunday 26 July President Ali announced the five members of the commission. The membership is corroborated by two independent outlets: the Guyana Chronicle of 26 July and Kiskadee Watch of 27 July. The single-source qualification carried in the previous build has been removed.

The commission was sworn in on Thursday 30 July, twelve days after the sinking. Four commissioners took the oath in person at State House, Georgetown, before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman; the chairman, Justice Godfrey Phillip Smith, who is not yet in Guyana, was sworn in virtually. President Ali attended. Five sources in this corpus carry it — the Department of Public Information, Demerara Waves, News Room, News Source Guyana and Kiskadee Watch — so it is not a single-source fact. The press was not invited. Demerara Waves and News Source Guyana both state so; News Source adds that the ceremony was streamed on the President's social media accounts instead. Ali is quoted saying the commission "meets the highest benchmarks of independence, impartiality, and objectivity" and pledging "every resource required"; no sum, vote or appropriation is stated in any account.

The announced terms of reference cover the causes of the disaster including loading, boarding procedures and passenger conditions; a review of the adequacy, coordination and effectiveness of the search, rescue and recovery response; whether applicable laws, regulations and maritime standards were followed; whether negligence, misconduct, dereliction of duty or institutional failure contributed; the vessel's condition, maintenance history and seaworthiness; weather, sea conditions, navigation and communications; the competence, qualifications, training and conduct of master and crew; passenger management including manifest preparation, possible overcrowding, cargo stowage and life-saving equipment; and recommendations for legislative, regulatory, institutional and operational reform. The President stated that the commission will determine its own procedures.

The statutory basis, now stated officially. On 30 July the Department of Public Information stated it in the government's own words for the first time: "The CoI was established under Section 2(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Chapter 19:03." Kiskadee Watch cites the Act without the section, as it had on 27 July. That confirms Kiskadee's earlier reporting and matches the AFC's proposal. The consequence for the dispute recorded here is specific and should be stated plainly: Christopher Ram's open letter of 28 July argued the commission should have been constituted under Part XVIII of the Shipping Act, and the government has now said on the record which statute it used. Ram's objection survives as a criticism of that choice; it no longer stands as an open question about which statute was in fact used. What remains uncheckable is the instrument itself, because nothing has been gazetted — the statute is now named, and the document naming it under that statute is still not published.

A fourth position on the same question, from the opposite direction. Single source Robert C. Millington's submitted analysis, recorded above, states that neither maritime regime could lawfully have been used — Part XVIII because it confers a power and not a duty, and Cap. 49:07 Part I because its own s. 3 disapplies it to ships in the service of the State — and that the Commission therefore correctly sits under the general Commissions of Inquiry Act, which he calls the clearest possible proof of the deficiency. That is a direct answer to Ram's objection and it contradicts it. This archive holds neither statutory text, records both readings, and prefers neither.

What is still not on the record, as at 31 July, a day after the swearing-in. No gazetted instrument, Order, Statutory Instrument number or Gazette date appears in any document here. No terms of reference have been published as a document; every account paraphrases them. No secretary has been named — Demerara Waves states it flatly on 30 July, and no other outlet addresses it. No reporting deadline: the DPI formula is that the commission will report "upon completion of its work." No budget figure, vote or appropriation. No rules of procedure, no hearing dates, no venue and no call for submissions; Kiskadee Watch reports the President saying the commissioners will determine their own procedures, which means the procedural rules did not exist on the day they were sworn. No inquest appears in the corpus, in either direction. None of this moved on 31 July, and two parties pressed for it: Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed publicly demanded the government "immediately release its full terms of reference", and defence counsel Dexter Todd made sight of them a precondition of deciding whether his clients participate at all. No first sitting date has been announced; the Guyana Congregational Union publicly hoped the Commission would begin "very soon".

Charges are no longer absent. On 28 July three employees of the operator were jointly charged with murder, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has publicly defended the decision and stated that the prosecution and the inquiry can proceed simultaneously. The statement carried on this site until 28 July — that the corpus contained no reference to charges being laid — described the position as it stood on 26 July and is superseded. What remains absent is most of the detail: no charge sheet, no official statement of the number of counts, and no charge against any official of the regulator, any board member or any minister. The particulars themselves are no longer absent — Kaieteur News published them on 30 July, alleging the murder of 72 named victims at a stated position off Devonshire Castle.

The commissioners, as reported

The opposition and civil society objections recorded higher up this page were made before the names were published. Responses to the membership itself have now arrived, and they are recorded here rather than above because they postdate it.

Christopher Ram, open letter of 28 July: does not contest the membership; contests the terms of reference and the statute used.

Transparency Institute of Guyana Inc., 30 July, the day of the swearing-in. Its president Mike Singh "questioned the neutrality of several appointees on the panel," and called on the President to reopen the framework of the commission by involving civil society organisations, religious bodies and victims' families in shaping the terms of reference. He warned that failing to do so "risks the entire inquiry being dismissed by the Guyanese public." Singh also argued that charging the crew before the commission reports "defeats the whole purpose of any such Commission of Inquiry." Single source — HGPTV Nightly News.

Amerindian Peoples Association, 29 and 30 July. Executive Director Jean La Rose states the APA had been pushing for a Commission of Inquiry since the disaster but "was not consulted on its terms of reference or the selection of commissioners, a gap she said undermines confidence that the process will be impartial." Reported by Kaieteur News, and separately by Kiskadee Watch, which has her criticising the commission's establishment as unilateral government action rather than the product of consultation.

The parliamentary opposition, 30 July: "welcomed the Commission but raised concerns about lack of consultation regarding commissioner selection and terms of reference, plus potential conflicts of interest." Single source — News Source Guyana.

The Attorney General, 29 July, from the other side: Anil Nandlall "expressed confidence in the Commission of Inquiry, despite concerns about members' alleged government connections." Single source — News Source Guyana.

Kiskadee Watch, 31 July, and the questions are unanswered. Single source The outlet reports that it put conflict-of-interest questions concerning Capt. Hamada Fouda and Nyree Dawn Alfonso to AAMOTI, the President's Press Unit and Minister Keoma Griffith, and received no response from any of them. The same report records the Opposition Leader stating doubts about the commissioners.

A defence objection of a different kind, and on 31 July it becomes a threatened court action. Attorney Dexter Todd argues that the murder prosecution itself will limit what the commission can examine: "if a matter is before one court, then not even a commission can look into the affairs of that matter. So, there are going to be barriers to the extent that the commission can dive into things." That is a sub judice argument, and it runs directly against the Director of Public Prosecutions' stated position that the two can proceed simultaneously. Single source — Kaieteur News, 29 July.

Positions taken between 5 and 13 August

Attorney General Anil Nandlall — two positions, and the second is the larger

On 6–7 August Nandlall put the salvage at US$8–10 million and defended the open tender: "no matter what is done, these people will not be satisfied because they are not concerned," and that had the government picked a firm directly it would have been accused of handpicking. The argument is about method and the allegation is about a date. Nothing in it addresses the proposal dated 28 July.

On 7 August he said something the government had not said before: that criminal accountability may not stop at the three men charged. "Everything has stages. Those who were in charge of the boat have been dealt with; more may be charged for all you know, after the Commission of Inquiry or even before. The Commission of Inquiry makes findings based on evidence and then makes recommendations based upon those findings… this cannot substitute for the police, but it will make recommendations for more persons to be investigated." He identified the areas the inquiry may reach as regulatory certification, maintenance oversight and supervisory failure. This is a statement of possibility by a minister, not a prosecutorial decision, and no further person has been charged. He is also recorded as the state's only account of the memorial reversal, and as alleging conflicts of interest among attorneys representing the accused. {{SOURCES: 2026-08-07-guyana-times-mv-barima-salvage-tender-opposition-will-never-be-satisfied-ag | 2026-08-07-hgptv-mv-barima-accountability-may-extend-beyond-the-three-accused-nandlall | 2026-08-06-kaieteur-news-sunken-mv-barima-could-cost-us10m-to-salvage-nandlall }}

The Commission of Inquiry, speaking for itself — 9 August

Chairman Justice Godfrey Smith: "We are still in preparatory stages, meetings…for now we are still organising ourselves." Eamon Courtenay SC, tasked with financial relief: "We are currently working out the procedures and modalities to assess and process claims. We expect to make the details public shortly." Secretary Javed Shadick said notice of sittings would be advertised in the newspapers. Ten days after being sworn in and twenty-two after the sinking: no hearing, no date, no published relief scheme. This is the Commission's own account of itself and is recorded here without gloss. {{SOURCES: 2026-08-09-kaieteur-news-barima-coi-financial-relief-still-in-planning-stages }}

The Guyana Trades Union Congress — Lincoln Lewis, 12 August

The first recorded trade union position in this corpus, and it arrives with the maintenance records. General Secretary Lincoln Lewis: "Accidents don't happen; they are caused." He argued that workers required to work amid documented defects were placed in a death trap, that they should not have to choose between a job and their safety, and that the decisions taken above the crew should be examined rather than only the conduct of the crew. It is an argument about where to look, not a finding about what happened. {{SOURCES: 2026-08-12-village-voice-mv-barima-warning-signs-were-documented-months-before-deadly-sinking }}

The Amerindian Peoples Association — from statement, to street, to sustained campaign

On 5 August the APA condemned Minister Edghill's participation in a government outreach in Region One, the region that lost the most people. Jean La Rose: "Yet, you have this person is being paraded in our communities" — "a mockery to people." On 12 August the APA held a picket outside the Office of the President from 16:30 to 18:00, reported at approximately 200 people and led by President Lemmel Benson Thomas and Executive Director Jean La Rose, demanding an independent investigation, the resignations of Ministers Edghill and Indar, reform of riverine transport safety, and recognition of Indigenous rights in transport safety priorities. The reported collective message: "Indigenous lives matter." The crowd figure is a single outlet's and is not independently attested. {{SOURCES: 2026-08-05-demerara-waves-apa-apnu-pillory-edghill-for-being-at-region-1-govt-outreach | 2026-08-13-village-voice-apa-protest-demands-justice-accountability-for-mv-barima-tragedy }}

Families of the missing — 12 August

The family of Neil Cort, 57, who ran the vessel's canteen and had 37 years of service, and his brother Kenrick Cort, 53, both still in the wreck, picketed the Office of the President for the ship to be raised. Spokesperson Collin Solomon: "It is very uncaring of the government to say that they need two weeks to negotiate for people to bring up this boat." And: "We demand justice. We demand accountability." Diane Cort, Neil Cort's wife: "My husband was my breadwinner…not me alone, but he looked out for everybody." This site publishes no victim list. These names appear because the family made them public in a protest it called. {{SOURCES: 2026-08-13-kaieteur-news-grieving-family-demands-urgent-recovery-of-sunken-mv-barima }}

A Partnership for National Unity and WIN — 5 August

APNU MP Juretha Fernandes on the Region One outreach: "Edghill being sent to Region One today for an outreach is the Government of Guyana saying to the Indigenous People of Region One that 'we don't give a damn about your lives.'" APNU parliamentary leader Terrence Campbell: "if we were not protesting, the PPP dictatorship would have left the MV Barima at the bottom of the Atlantic out there" — an assertion of causation this archive cannot test. Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, welcoming the tender but not its pace, attributed the decision to public and family pressure rather than government initiative, argued that emergency protocols should have been used instead of a standard procurement timeline, put the vessel as submerged sixteen days before the bid was announced, and said any contractor must keep the hull structurally intact so it can be examined forensically. Every quotation in the capture of that report was truncated at about 125 characters; his position is therefore given in substance and not in quotation marks. {{SOURCES: 2026-08-05-demerara-waves-apa-apnu-pillory-edghill-for-being-at-region-1-govt-outreach | 2026-08-05-hgptv-mv-barima-must-be-raised-intact-to-preserve-evidence-opposition-leader-azruddin-mohamed }}