Dear Editor,
Keith Bernard’s recent letter presents itself as a polished critique, but in reality it is a biased argument resting on selective readings of maritime precedent and an overly charitable interpretation of governmental inaction. His portrayal of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed’s offer to finance and execute the salvage of the MV Barima as “theatre” ignores both international investigative practice and the urgent need for accountability in Guyana.
The condition of the vessel is indeed relevant, but it is not a justification for abandoning the possibility of recovery. Around the world, salvage operations have been undertaken on vessels far older and in far worse condition than the MV Barima, precisely because the integrity of evidence and the dignity of victims demanded it. The MV Estonia and the Titanic are not comparable precedents — both involved international treaties, mass casualty grave sites, and geopolitical considerations far beyond Guyana’s context. Invoking them here obscures more than it clarifies.
Mr. Bernard’s claim that the MV Estonia was simply left untouched is factually incomplete. While the wreck itself was ultimately designated a protected grave site, critical components of the vessel were recovered and examined, most notably the bow visor and bow ramp. These parts were brought to the surface and analysed by the Joint Accident Investigation Commission, which confirmed that structural failure of the visor allowed water to flood the car deck — the central causal factor in the sinking. Subsequent assessments, including renewed investigations between 2021 and 2025, reaffirmed the importance of these recovered components in establishing the technical truth. Even in one of Europe’s most sensitive maritime tragedies, investigators did not rely solely on remote observation. They recovered essential physical evidence when doing so was necessary to determine the cause of the sinking. That precedent directly contradicts Mr. Bernard’s suggestion that raising the MV Barima would be reckless or unprecedented.
Mr. Bernard also invokes the Titanic as an example of restraint. But here again, the comparison is misleading. The Titanic was not salvaged, but it was subjected to extensive, technologically sophisticated investigation: deep sea imaging, debris field mapping, interior surveys, and multiple expeditions using submersibles and remotely operated vehicles. These missions produced thousands of photographs, detailed site maps, and even artifact recovery — nearly 5,000 artifacts were brought to the surface between 1987 and 2004 for forensic, historical, and conservation analysis. The Titanic precedent shows that when a wreck contains vital historical or forensic information, nations do not simply “leave it alone.” They investigate thoroughly using every available method. In stark contrast, the Guyana government appears intent on leaving the MV Barima — and all the evidence it contains — at the bottom of the ocean.
What is clear is this: Guyanese citizens have been told repeatedly that a Commission of Inquiry will deliver answers. Yet without the vessel, without the physical evidence, and without a transparent process, those answers risk being incomplete. Salvage is not a political performance; it is a practical step towards truth.
This brings us to the core issue: leadership. The MV Barima tragedy is not merely a maritime event; it is a national failure with profound human consequences. Families cannot be expected to determine salvage feasibility, evidentiary needs, or maritime safety. Those responsibilities belong to the State. To frame governmental hesitation as compassion is to abdicate the very duty public institutions exist to fulfill.
Mr. Mohamed’s offer is not political theatre. It is a response to a vacuum of decisive action. Around the world, salvage or partial recovery is undertaken when it is necessary to preserve evidence, provide closure, or ensure accountability. The MV Barima — an 87-year-old vessel with known structural issues — may pose challenges, but challenges do not absolve the State of responsibility. They demand competence, planning, and urgency.
Mr. Bernard suggests that timing renders the opposition leader’s offer suspect. In reality, timing is dictated by deterioration. Every day that passes increases corrosion, dispersal of evidence, and the risk that critical facts will be lost forever. Leadership requires stepping forward when others hesitate — not waiting until conditions are politically convenient.
Guyanese families deserve closure and the public deserves clarity. The country deserves a process that does not shrink from difficult undertakings simply because they are complex. If the Opposition Leader is willing to undertake the salvage, that willingness should be welcomed — especially since the government appears unable or unwilling to do so — and incorporated into a transparent, nationally coordinated response, not dismissed out of hand
Accountability is not achieved through restraint alone. It is achieved through action.
Sincerely,
Nandranie Singh, MP
We Invest in Nationhood
Discussion