Latest update August 31st, 2026 10:17 AM
Latest News
- Australian firm begins maiden exploration at newly acquired gold project
- Omai to use HFO generators
- Woman found dead, naked along Philipai trail; reputed husband questioned
- U.S. strikes Iranian rocket launchers on Strait of Hormuz in first military action in weeks
- NA Vendor chopped to head, robbed $250,000
Free movement cannot mean free movement on an unsafe vessel
Dear Editor,
The contention, by Neville Bissember jnr – as published as a Guest Column in Kiskadee Watch of 25th August, 2026 – that Suriname’s unilateral suspension of the M.V. Canawaima ferry service constitutes a “fetter” on the right of Guyanese and other CARICOM nationals to free movement is, in my view, an overly broad interpretation of community law.
The right of free movement under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas is a right of persons to move within the community. It cannot reasonably be interpreted as creating an absolute right to use a particular vessel, route or mode of transportation regardless of safety considerations.
There is a distinction between restricting a person’s right to enter another CARICOM Member State and temporarily preventing a vessel from operating because a maritime authority has concerns about its seaworthiness.
Suriname has sovereign responsibility for public safety within areas under its jurisdiction. If its maritime authority is satisfied that identified deficiencies on the Canawaima require immediate attention, it cannot be expected to permit the vessel to continue sailing simply because doing so may inconvenience passengers or disrupt commerce. Free movement cannot mean free movement on an unsafe vessel.
If stopping an unsafe ferry, whether done unilaterally or otherwise, constitutes a breach of free movement, would grounding an unsafe aircraft or closing an unsafe bridge or prohibiting an unsafe minibus from crossing a border similarly constitute a violation of CARICOM law?
Nor does the principle of “hassle-free travel” mean that every delay, inconvenience or disruption in transportation becomes a violation of community law. There must be a distinction between an unlawful impediment to the exercise of a community right and a legitimate regulatory measure that has incidental consequences for travellers.
Yours faithfully,
Roopnauth Hardyal
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
hits
Blunt of the day
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
