In a recent interview with a local television station, President Irfaan Ali disclosed that the MV Barima tragedy continues to cause him “sleepless nights.” He spoke of the burden of leadership when confronted by any tragedy of such magnitude; of witnessing the anxiety of relatives waiting desperately for news; of the relief of those eventually reunited with loved ones; and of the grief of families forced to accept that theirs would never return. The President is right: no leader wishes to preside over a tragedy in which so many citizens perish. Leadership is often sought and celebrated in anticipation of better days. Its real test comes when the unimaginable occurs and those elected to protect citizens must account for what happened, what failed and what they intend to do about it. Mr. Ali now says the tragedy must produce a new culture of “safety, infrastructure, leadership and responsibility.”
But surely by now the President understands that he is not alone in experiencing sleepless nights.
There are survivors who still carry memories of those seven hours on hodgepodge safety devices on the rough Atlantic waters. There are children without parents, parents without children and families for whom that July 18 nightmare did not end but began when the sun rose the following morning. Their sleepless nights did not begin with a television interview and cannot be relieved by expressions of presidential anguish. Increasingly, some of that anxiety must also arise from the manner in which the aftermath itself was and is being managed. More than two months later, the MV Barima remains on the seabed. The Commission of Inquiry has yet to begin substantive public hearings. Questions of institutional responsibility remain unresolved. And now families must contend with conflicting accounts surrounding the very process through which Government proposes to provide them financial assistance.
The salvage process alone illustrates the problem. Two Mondays ago, President Ali told journalists that he had not been “comprehensively” briefed on the procurement process for recovering the MV Barima. He promised to acquaint himself with the matter that very night. The country subsequently learnt that the three bids were being evaluated. Speaking to Guyanese in New York, the President said the technical team was conducting that exercise before a contractor could be selected. He reportedly explained his concern that the eventual selection should not create an appearance of favouritism should the successful bidder happen to be someone personally known to him. The country is waiting. At some point, procedural caution must produce a decision. A Government cannot indefinitely invoke the integrity of a process as an explanation for why that process has not produced a result.
Then came the considerably more disturbing source of sleepless nights.
Kiskadee Watch reported that an affected family said it was presented with a document that would absolve Government of responsibility for the tragedy and that the family refused to sign it. Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC has now rejected allegations surrounding compensation. His explanation deserves to be stated fairly. He says no financial offer of compensation has yet been made to any survivor or bereaved family; that Government has placed the legal component of the process in the hands of an independent team headed by former Belize Attorney General Eamon Courtenay; that participation is voluntary; and that affected persons have been advised in writing that they remain free to obtain independent legal advice. He further said that, should an agreement eventually arise, its terms and conditions would be contained in that agreement.
That clarification is important. But instead of making that family’s account disappear, it has produced questions requiring answers rather than declarations. What exactly was the document the family said it received? Who prepared it? Who presented it? What did its clauses say about liability? Was it part of the Government-created legal framework Mr Nandlall described, or something entirely unrelated? If unrelated, Government should have little difficulty establishing that fact. And if the document exists within the process being administered by the independent legal team, then publishing the relevant standard provisions—with personal information removed—would allow Guyanese to determine whether the family’s interpretation or the Attorney General’s account more accurately reflects what is occurring.
There is an additional reason why families might reasonably be having sleepless nights. Guyana has been here before.
Following the 2023 Mahdia dormitory fire, Government similarly insisted that financial payments to affected families constituted assistance rather than compensation or an admission of liability. At the time, the Amerindian Peoples Association alleged that families were being rushed or coerced into agreements absolving the State of liability; Nandlall rejected those accusations and maintained that the arrangements would not interfere with the Mahdia COI. The validity and effect of those Mahdia agreements have subsequently become the subject of litigation.
That history does not prove that the same thing is occurring with the MV Barima. But it explains why affected families are entitled to examine every document carefully, obtain independent legal advice and ask exactly what rights—if any—they surrender by signing. The resemblance is sufficient to justify vigilance without pretending that the outcome has already been determined. And this returns us to the President’s newly proclaimed culture of “leadership and responsibility.”
When exactly does responsibility begin?
The same political leadership overseeing the institutions connected to the MV Barima remains substantially intact. That fact does not establish culpability. Ministers should not be declared responsible before evidence determines where failures occurred. But neither should political responsibility be treated as something that can exist only after a Commission tells the President it exists. The MV Barima was an uninsured State-owned vessel operating within a State system of management, regulation, inspection and maritime safety. Three operational employees are already before the courts. Meanwhile, the larger institutional chain remains the subject of an inquiry whose substantive public hearings have yet to begin.
That asymmetry deserves attention.
President Ali’s call for a new culture of responsibility will acquire meaning only if responsibility is permitted to travel in every direction the evidence takes it. Downwards to crew members, if warranted. Across to administrators and regulators, if warranted. Upwards to senior officials and ministers, if warranted. And ultimately to the political administration itself if decisions or omissions justify it. A culture of responsibility cannot have a ceiling.
The Government can immediately remove at least one source of anxiety. Publish the standard documentation being presented through the legal-assistance process. Explain precisely what affected persons are being asked to sign. State whether any provision releases the State or its agencies from future liability. Make clear whether financial assistance remains available to a family that refuses to enter any settlement. And encourage every affected person to obtain genuinely independent legal advice before surrendering any right.
President Ali says leadership and responsibility are among the things keeping him awake. Then perhaps those sleepless nights can serve a purpose. The families do not need the President merely to share their anguish; they need his Government to resolve the uncertainties contributing to it. Recover the vessel. Begin the hearings. Follow responsibility wherever it leads. And place the documents on the table. There may be no immediate cure for the sleepless nights produced by grief, but Government should at least ensure that its own actions are not creating new ones.
Discussion