The MV Barima should be raised from the sea floor. It is as simple as that.
In the first place it contains the remains of an unknown number of those who died in the disaster, and in the second it constitutes the sole source of physical evidence for what went wrong. But the government doesn’t want to salvage it.
There was the President in an address to Parliament on Monday, read on his behalf by the AG, committing the government to leaving no stone unturned in ascertaining the full circumstances behind the disaster. “The truth must be established,” he said. Except that establishing the truth does not appear to be priority No 1 for his administration.
In order to avoid the inevitable criticism which will come if it does not refloat the vessel, the government has now pushed the onus for coming to that conclusion onto the families of those who perished. As was pointed out in our report on the issue, the question has to be asked as to whether the decision about salvaging a boat which is central to both a criminal prosecution and a Commission of Inquiry should rest solely with grieving families. The rational answer is that it should not.
Untroubled by such considerations the government has now circulated a form to the family members of those who died to seek their approval to leave the MV Barima where it is. It is not clear how many members of one family will be allowed to express their views, which potentially at least could open the avenue for a manipulation of the figures, but in any case as it stands the document they are being asked to sign is of a biased nature since it does not offer alternatives.
Its introductory paragraph reads:
“We, the undersigned relatives and loved ones of those connected with the MV Barima, having reflected with solemn hearts upon this place of loss and remembrance, hereby express our concurrence and heartfelt wish that the vessel remain undisturbed in its present resting place.”
It goes on to describe the waters where the ferry is located as a place of “enduring memory, reflection and reverence” and the boat itself as a sacred memorial. The proposal is to construct a maritime monument carrying the names of all the victims. The form does not ask whether the signatories would prefer to have the ferry salvaged so the remains of their relative(s) could be retrieved. As a consequence they may believe that there is no option available other than the one on offer. In addition, since they will be in a state of distress, they may not be in a position to interrogate whoever presents them with the form, or consider its contents in a calm way.
It is true that the Prime Minister has said that if the families wanted the vessel raised the government would likely honour that request. The problem is that as indicated, the matter as it has been presented in writing does not reflect that preference.
It must be said that it is difficult to imagine that close relatives would not like the bodies of their loved ones recovered from the deep if at all possible, so this whole government exercise carries a whiff of the insidious about it. It is not that the administration does not have options for salvage; Prime Minister Mark Phillips has indicated that various reputable international companies had contacted the administration on the matter. It is not either that it could argue it lacks the financial resources for such an expensive exercise. It is true the French divers stated that it was dangerous to try and access the ferry on the seabed, but raising it is an entirely different matter, and to date the government has not commissioned any company to even evaluate the feasibility of that.
Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed has offered to finance and undertake the salvage operation. There has been no official response from the government, but then it would have represented something of a sensation if there had been. It is unrealistic to expect that the current governing party would accept anything of that magnitude from Mr Mohamed, but that is no reason for them not to retain a salvage company of their own. The longer the ferry remains on the muddy ocean floor, the more difficult – and expensive – it will be to bring it up.
The Prime Minister also downplayed the value of the sunken ferry as evidence.
Even without the salvage, he said, the Commission of Inquiry would still be done, and evidence could be obtained from the registration, capacity, maintenance and repair records, as well as from crew members and survivors.
He should know better. There is no substitute for physical evidence, more especially if witnesses for some reason or another do not want to speak or misrepresent the facts, and where some of the records, at least, are compromised.
The suspicion that the government seeks to put lid on the truth was compounded when the news emerged that the police had charged Captain Kevin Price and First Mate Rondel Dwayne Roberts of the MV Barima as well as Goods Superintendent Delon Granderson for murder. This is before the COI has even started sitting, let alone come to any conclusions, in addition to which lawyer Darren Wade has called the charges “legally unsustainable.”
It has taken no time, therefore, for allegations to circulate that they are being made scapegoats by the government, in a situation where the two ministers involved in the matter are refusing to resign. But that is not all of it. More than one lawyer, including Nigel Hughes, has explained that after being charged with murder an accused would not testify before a COI because that testimony could be used against them in their criminal trial.
So here we have a potential situation whereby critical physical evidence will not be available to the COI if the ferry is not raised, and the evidence of three critical witnesses will not be available because they will not testify when they are facing murder charges.
It was Sharda Ganga writing perceptively in Suriname’s DWT about the loss of the MV Barima who said “…bad governance kills.” Not just people, it should be added, but also the truth.
Discussion