On Monday, President Irfaan Ali announced that his Government had disbursed $123 million to some 750 persons affected by the MV Barima tragedy and that twenty turnkey houses would be provided to affected families. If the $123 million were divided equally among 750 recipients, it would amount to approximately $164,000 per person. But the President did not, according to the information available to this editorial, explain whether the money was in fact divided equally, what formula determined individual payments, what categories of persons qualified, or precisely what the $123 million represents. Those are not minor omissions. They go directly to the question of whether Government is administering a transparent compensation framework or simply announcing assistance as it is disbursed.
Nearly two months after the sinking of a State-owned vessel in which scores of Guyanese lost their lives, survivors and bereaved families should know what exactly they are receiving. Is it emergency assistance, income support, compensation, an ex gratia payment, or some combination of these? The distinction matters. Government assistance is substantially discretionary: Government determines what to give, to whom and for how long. Compensation suggests something different—a claim assessed against identifiable loss, according to some standard capable of explanation and scrutiny. One treats those affected principally as victims requiring assistance; the other begins from the proposition that they may possess rights and legitimate claims arising from what happened aboard a State-owned vessel.
President Ali has repeatedly indicated that the final compensation package will be informed by the Commission of Inquiry. But that proposition introduces difficulties of its own. The COI was originally sworn in against a limited timeframe and its credibility has already been questioned by some survivors, relatives of the deceased and representative Indigenous organisations. What happens if those stakeholders ultimately reject its findings or recommendations? More immediately, what status do the payments presently being made have while the COI remains unfinished? Are they advances against eventual compensation? Are they separate humanitarian payments? Will they subsequently be deducted from whatever final package is recommended? Or has Government already established a methodology that it intends to continue regardless of what the Commission recommends? Government could reduce much of this uncertainty now by establishing an inclusive interim framework—transparent, consultative and expressly capable of modification once the COI reports.
The numbers make that framework even more necessary. If $164,000 is used merely as an average and spread across the period approaching two months since the tragedy, it represents approximately $82,000 per person per month. But averages conceal more than they reveal. A survivor temporarily unable to work is not in the same economic position as a household that has permanently lost its principal breadwinner. A farmer’s losses may differ considerably from those of a miner, fisher, trader or salaried worker. A child who has lost a parent presents another category of long-term need altogether. And where children themselves died, the moral and legal questions cannot sensibly be reduced to an arbitrary per-person calculation.
So what is the formula? Was lost income assessed? Were dependents considered? Were age, occupation and earning capacity factored into individual payments? What provision exists for continuing medical care, psychological support or education? Are survivors receiving different amounts from bereaved families? Are the twenty houses additional to the financial payments, or do they form part of a broader package? And perhaps most importantly, who determined that whatever amounts are presently being paid represent an appropriate response to eachrecipient’s circumstances? These questions arise for two reasons. First, Government has announced a large aggregate figure without publishing the methodology beneath it. Second, no one yet knows whether this methodology will survive the COI’s recommendations—or whether the Commission will recommend an entirely different basis for compensation.
There is then the question of duration. Without a published framework setting out the total scope of assistance or compensation, neither recipients nor the wider public can know where Government support begins, where it ends, or what happens when an individual payment is exhausted. The recipients must spend these monies in the same economy in which Government itself acknowledges continuing cost-of-living pressures. An aggregate announcement of $123 million sounds substantial. Divided among hundreds of people and measured against months or potentially years of lost household income, its meaning changes considerably. Was inflation incorporated into whatever calculation produced these amounts? Will continuing payments, if there are any, be adjusted as living costs rise? A compensation mechanism intended to address future loss cannot reasonably be designed as though the future value of money will remain unchanged.
The country’s petroleum wealth introduces another dimension, although it should not be confused with compensation. Survivors and bereaved families do not acquire a superior claim to Guyana’s oil patrimony merely because they suffered this tragedy. Their stronger claim is more direct. If the State intends to provide compensation or sustained support following a catastrophe involving a State-owned vessel, the basis, duration and adequacy of that support should be debated and transparently established. Separately, each recipient should understand exactly what is included in their packages, what is excluded, and in terms of exclusion whether the government’s current framework affects any subsequent petroleum wealth disbursement.
The Government should therefore publish its disbursement framework: who qualifies; the categories of assistance being provided; how individual amounts are calculated; whether payments are interim or final; how the twenty houses will be allocated; what provisions exist for dependents and long-term needs; and how the present arrangement will interact with whatever the COI eventually recommends. Until then, $123 million is an impressive aggregate announcement without sufficient public information beneath it. It tells the country what Government says it has disbursed, but not enough about what each affected person received, why that amount was chosen, what it is intended to compensate for, or what happens next.
And that returns us to the distinction contained in the title. The State should make clear whether it sees those affected by the MV Barima principally as victims to whom Government chooses to extend assistance, or citizens possessing rights and legitimate claims arising from a tragedy aboard a State-owned vessel. The difference is not semantic. Victimhood can invite sympathy and discretionary relief. Rights require standards, transparency, participation and accountability.
Discussion