Latest update September 5th, 2026 10:33 AM
Latest News
- Govt’s ‘mad man approach’ to borrowing must end – Norton
- British man accused of scamming Guyanese was jailed for fraud in the UK
- Over 90 contractors bid to rebuild Little Diamond-Herstelling NDC office
- WTC director Wesley Kirton rescued from Moblissa swamp
- U.S. pressure on Iran starting to tell, as sanctions and blockade bite
MV Barima murder charges: Justice or scapegoating?
Dear Editor,
Guyana needs truth and accountability for the MV Barima tragedy. But justice cannot be driven by grief, public outrage or political convenience.
Captain Kevin Price, called “KP,” Chief Mate Rondell Dwayne Roberts and Transport and Harbours Department Goods Superintendent Delon Granderson face multiple murder charges arising from the July 18 disaster. They have been remanded, but have not been convicted and remain presumed innocent.
The tragedy is undeniable. The legal basis for murder, however, must still be proved. Under the law, murder is not simply a death caused by carelessness, incompetence or violation of safety rules.
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that each accused caused the deaths and possessed the necessary “malice aforethought” ordinarily, an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
Although intention may be inferred from compelling circumstances, it cannot be presumed merely from the scale of the disaster. Reports that passengers were omitted from the manifest and that two crew members tested positive for marijuana raise legitimate concerns.
But those facts do not, by themselves, establish impairment at the relevant time, causation or murderous intent. They may support allegations of negligence, misconduct or other offences, depending on the evidence. They do not automatically prove murder.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has stated that her office reviewed the police file, relevant legal principles, Commonwealth authorities and public-policy considerations before advising that murder charges be instituted. Her constitutional independence must be respected. But public policy cannot substitute for evidence, and public outrage cannot supply the required criminal intent.
The prosecution must eventually answer several fundamental questions: What did each accused know? What warnings were given? What specific acts or omissions are alleged? How did those actions cause the deaths? What evidence shows an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm? Why are the Ministers of the relevant Ministries, and others involved with the certification not charged also?
These questions must be answered separately for each accused. Criminal responsibility is personal; collective blame is not proof.
Only partial disclosure has reportedly been provided to the defence, which in itself undermines the indecent haste to charge by the DPP. The accused are entitled to receive and challenge the evidence against them. The State must prove its case in court evidence and the law-not through press statements, political rhetoric or the horror of the tragedy itself.
The Commission of Inquiry has a different and much broader responsibility. It must examine the vessel’s age and condition, maintenance history, loading practices, passenger controls, safety equipment, navigation systems, staffing, training, weather warnings, emergency response and governmental oversight.
Accountability must not stop with the captain and two employees. The men operating the vessel cannot become a convenient firewall protecting those responsible for the system in which they worked. If administrative, regulatory or ministerial failures contributed to the disaster, those failures must also be exposed and addressed.
The victims and their families deserve justice, compensation and the complete truth. The accused deserve due process and a fair trial. These principles are not contradictory; both are essential to the rule of law. A democracy does not prove its strength by filing the harshest charge as quickly as possible. It proves its strength by filing the correct charges against every responsible person and supporting them with admissible evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Until the State reveals the evidence establishing causation and murderous intent, the decisive question remains: What transformed the MV Barima tragedy from possible negligence or manslaughter into murder, and was the discretion of the DPP properly, or conveniently, exercised?
Regards,
Albert Baldeo
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
Website Hits
Blunt of the day
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
