Opposition parties cite lack of consultation in President's COI of MV Barima tragedy

What this source establishes

Kaieteur News reports a joint statement by five opposition parties, WIN, APNU, FGM, AFC and VPAC, issued on the evening of Saturday 25 July, objecting to the absence of consultation on the composition of the Commission of Inquiry. The parties argue that a COI is not a substitute for a marine casualty investigation under the IMO Casualty Investigation Code, SOLAS and the IMO Model Regulations on Domestic Ferry Safety, and that both should run. They also object to the timing, coming immediately before Parliament was due to debate opposition motions on Monday 27 July, and raise a separate objection to the appointment of the Commission's Secretary.

Figures cited in this source

at least 73 dead; 76 survivors

Key claims

• Five opposition parties — WIN, APNU, the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), the Alliance For Change (AFC) and the Vigilant Political Action Committee (VPAC) — issued a joint statement on Saturday evening highlighting the lack of consultation with the parliamentary opposition in establishing the COI.
• The capsizing one week earlier resulted in the death of at least 73 persons while 76 persons survived.
• The joint statement said: 'A tragedy of this magnitude demands a process that inspires confidence across the political and social spectrum. Inclusive consultation would have strengthened the credibility and legitimacy of the inquiry from its inception.'
• The parties noted the timing of the announcement, made immediately before the National Assembly is due to debate opposition motions on the MV Barima tragedy on Monday.
• The parties said the Commission cannot replace Parliament's constitutional responsibility to examine matters of national importance or the executive's obligation to answer to elected representatives.
• The parties argued a COI is not a substitute for an independent marine safety investigation and that Guyana, as an IMO member, should undertake a technical marine casualty investigation consistent with SOLAS, the IMO Casualty Investigation Code, and the IMO Model Regulations on Domestic Ferry Safety.
• The parties distinguished the two: a COI examines governance, public administration and accountability, while a marine safety investigation is a specialised technical investigation by a multidisciplinary team whose purpose is to determine how and why the casualty occurred, not to apportion blame or determine civil or criminal liability.
• The parties said the Commission's mandate must extend beyond operational issues to examine ministerial oversight, regulatory enforcement, administrative decision-making, emergency preparedness, resource allocation and systemic failures within government.
• The parties said 'No office or public official should be beyond scrutiny where the evidence warrants examination.'
• The parties raised concerns about the appointment of the Secretary to the Commission of Inquiry, saying the secretary manages evidence, records, witnesses and day-to-day administration and must be free from any actual or perceived conflict of interest.
• The parties reiterated the call for Ministers Juan Edghill and Deodat Indar to resign or at least proceed on leave pending completion of the inquiry, consistent with ministerial accountability under the Westminster system.

Quotations

• “A tragedy of this magnitude demands a process that inspires confidence across the political and social spectrum. Inclusive consultation would have strengthened the credibility and legitimacy of the inquiry from its inception.”— WIN, APNU, FGM, AFC and VPAC, joint statement
• “No office or public official should be beyond scrutiny where the evidence warrants examination.”— joint opposition statement
• “consistent with the principles of ministerial accountability under the Westminster system of government, we reiterate our call for Minister Juan Edghill and Minister Deodat Indar to resign or, at the very least, proceed on leave pending the completion of the inquiry.”— joint opposition statement

This page is a research summary prepared for comment and review. It is not the article. Copyright in the original remains with Kaieteur News; the full text is held only in the private research corpus from which this archive was compiled. Follow the link above to read it at the source.