Give the Commission a chance to do its preparatory work

Aug 30, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – There is a legitimate public concern about the pace at which the Commission of Inquiry into the MV Barima tragedy is getting underway. Survivors, relatives of those who died and the wider Guyanese public understandably want answers. After such a devastating national tragedy, nobody should be surprised that every delay generates anxiety and questions.

But there is an equally important principle that must not be lost in the understandable impatience for answers. That principle is that a Commission of Inquiry should be judged by the quality and independence of its work, not by the speed with which it holds public hearings.

The recent announcement that the Commissioners are still in the planning phase and have not yet determined a date for hearings is certainly something the public should know. Transparency does not, by itself, constitute evidence that the inquiry is compromised, improperly structured or destined to protect the State.

Planning and preparation are important to a COI of this nature. A Commission dealing with a tragedy as complex as the MV Barima disaster cannot simply assemble its members, walk into a courtroom and announce, “Everybody ready? Let’s start.” There must be preparatory work involving documentary evidence, witness identification, legal procedures, logistics, terms of engagement, technical material and the organisation of hearings.

Public hearings are only one part of the evidentiary process, not the sole means by which a Commission of Inquiry gathers information. Much of the critical evidence may come through documents, official records, expert reports, inspections, written statements and other material obtained during the Commission’s investigative work.

The Commission includes a Caribbean jurist as Chairman, a naval architect and marine engineer, a senior maritime surveyor and compliance auditor, an attorney with expertise in admiralty and maritime law, and a retired rear admiral with experience in maritime operations and security. That combination suggests an attempt to bring legal, technical and operational expertise to a tragedy that requires considerably more than public hearings.

It is equally premature to suggest that because the Commission was appointed by the President, it is somehow incapable of independently investigating the Executive. Presidential appointment is not, in itself, evidence of presidential control.

The real test will be what the Commissioners do once the evidence begins to emerge. If they summon senior public officials, examine ministries, scrutinise regulatory agencies, investigate the condition and maintenance of the vessel, examine certification and inspection procedures, assess crew competence, investigate passenger capacity, examine communications and navigation and follow the documentary evidence wherever it leads, then the Commission will be doing precisely what it was established to do.

But even as the Commission follows the evidence wherever it leads, it is important to be clear about what its findings can and should establish—and what falls within the separate realm of political accountability.  A Commission of Inquiry is not a mechanism for automatically producing ministerial resignations. Nor should the absence of a ministerial resignation be treated as proof that an inquiry has failed.

Ministerial responsibility is a serious constitutional and political matter. But a minister cannot reasonably be held personally responsible for every failure committed by every employee within a ministry or agency. To suggest otherwise would reduce ministerial responsibility to political liability without limits.

At the same time, if an inquiry uncovers evidence that political decisions, ministerial directives, or failures at the highest levels contributed to the tragedy, then the Commission must have the courage to say so. That is the standard by which it should ultimately be judged.

The temptation to prejudge the outcome because another Commission did not produce the conclusions some people expected should be resisted. What Guyana needs now is not a Commission under political pressure to reach a predetermined destination. It needs a Commission sufficiently confident and independent to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

If the Commission does that, Guyana will have gained something more valuable than a report assigning blame. It will have gained an opportunity to understand how a tragedy of this magnitude occurred and, more importantly, how to prevent another one.

The Commissioners should therefore be allowed to do their work. Let it prepare as it must. And let it follow the evidence. Let it ask the difficult questions. And when its work is completed, let Guyana judge it by the answers it produces — rather than by assumptions made before the first witness takes the stand.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• Commission, MV Barima tragedy, Peeping Tom, preparatory work

---