Christopher Ram’s Storm in a Teacup

Jul 30, 2026 Letters

Dear Editor,

Christopher Ram’s latest open letter to President Irfaan Ali, concerning the Commission of Inquiry into the MV Barima disaster, is filled with serious-sounding questions, dramatic warnings and constitutional thunderclaps. But beneath lies a fundamental misunderstanding: the fact that a question not expressly written in a Terms of Reference does not mean the Commission is prohibited from investigating it.

Ram argues that the Commission’s Terms of Reference focus on “the night of 18 July” and do not address the “years before it.” This is a curious interpretation of how Commissions of Inquiry operate. Terms of Reference are not a criminal indictment, a court charge sheet, or a narrow checklist where commissioners are forbidden from examining anything not specifically itemised. They establish the scope and objectives of the inquiry. Within that framework, commissioners have the authority to follow evidence wherever it leads.

The Commission is empowered to examine the circumstances surrounding the disaster. That necessarily includes questions about the vessel’s age, maintenance history, deployment decisions, availability of replacement vessels, regulatory oversight, and administrative choices that may have contributed to the tragedy.

So, when Ram asks why an 87-year-old vessel remained in service, why the MV Kalliopi N had not yet been deployed, and what role government decisions played, the answer is that those are precisely the types of questions the Commission can investigate if evidence suggests they are relevant.

Nothing in the Terms of Reference says: “The Commission shall investigate only what happened on the evening of July 18 and shall ignore everything that happened before.” Nothing says: “The commissioners shall examine the sinking but not the decisions that placed the vessel on that voyage.” That limitation exists only in Ram’s imagination.

Also, has Ram forgotten that Commissions of Inquiry in Guyana are traditionally established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, which gives the appointing authority the power to define the matters to be investigated and the powers to be exercised by commissioners?

The MV Barima Commission is not a maritime tribunal created under the Shipping Act. It is a Commission of Inquiry established under the Commissions of Inquiry Act.

Ram repeatedly insists that the investigation should have been conducted under Part XVIII of the Guyana Shipping Act. That may be a legitimate matter for debate, but it does not mean that the current Commission is illegitimate, incapable, or powerless.

The irony is that Ram himself identifies the very issues he wants investigated: vessel certification, maintenance records, passenger numbers, operational decisions, the role of authorities and government oversight. Yet he seems determined to declare these matters outside the Commission’s reach. They are not.

A serious inquiry does not merely ask: “What caused the vessel to sink?” It also asks: “Why was the vessel there in the first place? Who made the decisions? What information did they have? What alternatives existed? Were proper standards followed?”

Those questions are already embedded within the broad language of examining seaworthiness, compliance with maritime law, maintenance, operational conduct and the circumstances surrounding the voyage.

The Commission has the mandate. The commissioners have the authority. The evidence will determine the conclusions.

Regards,

Roopnauth Hardyal

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Christopher Ram, Commission of Inquiry, Letters, MV Barima disaster, President Irfaan Ali, Roopnauth Hardyal

Latest News