The Commission of Inquiry into the MV Barima disaster yesterday said it was improper for its counsel to publicly express opinions on matters still before it, distancing itself from statements attributed to the attorneys that government ferries do not require seaworthiness certificates.
In a clarification signed by Chairman Godfrey P. Smith SC on behalf of the commission, the commissioners stressed that they had made no determination on the MV Barima’s seaworthiness or its requirements for safety-related certification.
“It is improper for Counsel to the Commission to publicly opine on issues the determination of which remains live before the Commission and resides exclusively within its Terms of Reference to determine,” the statement said.
The clarification followed an October 22 Department of Public Information (DPI) report which attributed to counsel the position that government-owned and operated ferries, including the Barima, did not require seaworthiness certificates.
While the commission’s statement did not name the attorneys, the DPI report attributed the comments to Arudranauth Gossai and Teni Housty, who serve as counsel to the commission.
DPI reported that the attorneys said this position arose under the Transport and Harbours Act and its regulations and had applied since independence.
The commissioners said they became aware of the publication on October 27. It had prompted emails and submissions asking whether the comments represented the commission’s position and whether it had determined that the MV Barima was exempt from seaworthiness and other safety certification.
“The statements attributed to Counsel to the Commission are in no way indicative of the views or position of the Commission or any of its members,” the clarification stated.
The commissioners said the questions remained open and would be determined after further evidence was heard and the relevant documents carefully reviewed.
The DPI report followed testimony by former Maritime Administration Department (MARAD) Director of Maritime Safety Captain John Flores about documentation for government ferries.
According to Kiskadee Watch’s October 22 report, Flores testified that gaps in records for older ferries remained unresolved when he left the position at the end of 2022, seven years after taking office.
He said MARAD had approached the Transport and Harbours Department for registration documents and certificates, but had difficulty locating records for older vessels. Flores was also uncertain which requirements applied to government ferries regarding safety certificates, load-line certificates, stability booklets and loading manuals.
The reported exemption was subsequently challenged by Forward Guyana leader and Member of Parliament Amanza Walton-Desir.
Kiskadee Watch reported on October 25 that Walton-Desir had submitted legal arguments to the commission contending that Section 265(1) of the Guyana Shipping Act requires every passenger ship to carry a valid Passenger Ship Safety Certificate before proceeding to sea from a Guyanese port.
She argued that the MV Barima’s commercial operation, carrying fare-paying passengers and freight, distinguished it from government vessels used for non-commercial purposes. She also asked the commission to identify the precise statutory provision relied upon for any exemption and obtain the vessel’s registration and safety records.
Yesterday’s ’s clarification makes clear that the commission has not resolved those competing positions.
The inquiry is examining the circumstances of the MV Barima’s July 18 sinking while travelling from Georgetown to Port Kaituma, including compliance with maritime laws and the search-and-rescue response.
Oral hearings are scheduled to resume on November 10. Thirty-three witnesses had testified before the break. During the break the secretariat is gathering further evidence and statements, particularly from survivors.
Discussion