October 18, 2026 marked exactly three months since the MV Barima sank off the Essequibo Coast of Guyana. Based on the official coordinates the MV Barima is lying approximately 28 nautical miles off Bounty Hall, Essequibo Coast under a depth of some 50 feet of water. The boat was 87 years old, and littered with issues associated with a vessel of that age. Cabinet had in March this year issued tender documents for comprehensive rehabilitation of the MV Barima. It is therefore prudent to assume that the entire Government of Guyana was fully aware of the seaworthy compliance and compatibility of the MV Barima.
To compound it all, the boat was alleged to be overloaded with both passengers and cargo. While the tonnage of the vessel was estimated to be around 596 on the afternoon of its last and fateful voyage, the number of passengers was initially said to be around 133 then revised upwards to 176. The total number of survivors was 76 and the presumed dead 103. Recovered bodies amounted to 73 with 30 missing including the youngest at 2 years old. By all estimates this may not be the final figure.
What has been unmistakable throughout this ordeal is the apparent absence of urgency and humanity in the government’s dealings with survivors and the families of the dead and missing. The President announced a fund to assist affected families, yet concerns persist about the amount of support actually received and whether the promised visits by social workers and psychologists have been sustained. The government should disclose how much has been disbursed to each family, what services have been provided and what assistance remains available.
There is something profoundly troubling about an administration that can mobilise resources and machinery to prepare Georgetown for a royal visit while families of the MV Barima victims continue to plead for action and information. Streets and sites likely to be visited by King Charles III are being attended to with a speed that grieving citizens have every reason to wish had been applied to their own demands.
The contrast does not end there. As Guyana received King Charles III yesterday, concerns have also been raised about the treatment of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and the conduct of elements of the Guyana Police Force. It would be a bitter spectacle indeed if officers accused by critics of acting against political opponents were to stand resplendent in uniform, providing security for a visiting monarch, while citizens question whether the same institution is prepared to protect their democratic rights.
The government’s handling of the salvage has been especially disturbing. Early statements by Prime Minister Mark Phillips raised the possibility that the vessel might remain underwater. That prospect caused understandable outrage among families who believed their loved ones could still be inside. Public pressure followed, and the government eventually moved towards salvage, awarding a contract in October. Yet the vessel remains below the surface, and families remain entitled to ask why the process has taken so long and when the work will begin.
But the continued procrastination by this administration in salvaging the MV Barima could very well be to delay this matter until public interest wanes.
The callousness of the Ali government has been on display regularly. One just has to recall how this administration treated senior citizens during their two cash grant distributions. But even more notorious has been a recent development involving the use of a megaphone by MV Barima protestors demanding the salvaging of the vessel. According to information in the public domain, protestors were advised by the Guyana Police Force that use of a megaphone was permissible once approved. Naturally, the organisers applied for said permit only to be told that such application was denied. Once again, here we have, on the eve of the State visit by the British Monarch a public law enforcement institution funded by taxpayers and which ostensibly has taken an oath to serve and protect the citizens of this country being weaponised against grieving families and their supporters.
The visit by the King will also place Indigenous communities before the national and international spotlight. Those invited to greet His Majesty with the Mari-Mari and other traditional welcome songs will do so with dignity and hospitality. Yet cultural performances must not be mistaken for evidence that all is well in Indigenous Guyana. The losses suffered in the MV Barima tragedy, and the concerns of the Carib community of Chinese Landing over threats to its ancestral lands, must be heard alongside the songs of welcome.
King Charles III has expressed concern for Indigenous peoples and vulnerable communities in different parts of the world. It is to be hoped that his visit will also draw attention to Guyanese communities whose grief and struggles are too easily overshadowed by official celebration. Acknowledging their concerns would bring greater meaning to the occasion than any carefully arranged display could provide.
Let the government clean the streets, assemble its officers and prepare its ministers to receive the King. Let the cameras capture the handshakes and the polished surroundings. None of it can conceal the wreck beneath the water, the families still searching for closure or the questions that this administration has yet to answer. This government may dress a city for a royal visit; it cannot dress up its response to the MV Barima tragedy as an adequate measure of care.
It has treated the anguish of the MV Barima families as an inconvenience to be managed. It has failed to bring the urgency and determination demanded by a disaster of this magnitude. It has allowed grieving citizens to be subjected to restrictions when they sought to make their demands heard.
Lastly, we truly apologise to the King that the resplendent city streets and sites, the absence of the homeless and other forms of street people, as well as the usual animal strays are only a temporary fix for his benefit, and rest assured, the state of Guyana will return to normalcy in the not too distant future. And secondly, for this administration’s abdication of its responsibilities to its population who continue to belabour under the twin burdens of economic uncertainty and the high cost of living.
Discussion