The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Government knowingly placed lives at risk by allowing the MV Barima to continue operating despite documented evidence that the vessel required extensive structural and mechanical repairs, according to Village Voice News in-house political scientist, Randy Gopaul.
Describing the disaster as one of the worst waterway tragedies in post-Independence Guyana, Gopaul said the tender documents released by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed paint a disturbing picture of a vessel that should have been in dry dock—not carrying passengers to Port Kaituma.
“The PPP Government has blood on its hands for putting a non-seaworthy vessel on the waterways rather than in dry dock for the repairs its own internal documents recommended,” Gopaul said. “If these documents are authentic, they suggest the Government knowingly exposed passengers and crew to unacceptable risks.”
The MV Barima departed Georgetown on Saturday July 18, 2026 with 133 persons officially recorded on board—116 passengers and 17 crew members. Authorities have since acknowledged that the passenger manifest was incomplete, with approximately half of those rescued not appearing on the official list, raising the possibility that more people were aboard than officially recorded.
Against that backdrop, Mohamed on Sunday published on his social media what he identified as tender documents detailing the scope of repairs required for the ageing vessel before the disaster. The Government has not publicly addressed the contents of the documents.
“These are the tender documents just shared with the Opposition Leader, clearly showing MV Barima was not seaworthy and a danger to everyone on board,” Mohamed stated.
He added: “Minister Edghill is fully aware of the state of MV Barima. NO MAINTENANCE WAS DONE. Which means that the boat should have been in the dry dock last night, not on the way to Kaituma.”
The tender documents identify extensive structural and mechanical deficiencies extending well beyond routine maintenance.
Among the most significant is the vessel’s hull. The documents call for replacing approximately 10,000 kilograms of deteriorated hull plating and framing and another 3,000 kilograms of deteriorated internal walls, plates and frames. Such deterioration points to extensive corrosion that, if left unaddressed, could compromise the vessel’s structural integrity, permit water ingress, reduce buoyancy, and increase the risk of flooding.
The documents also identify major repairs to the cargo hatch system, including replacement of hatch beams and damaged hatch boards, cement work around hatch openings, and installation of a tarpaulin hatch cover. Defective cargo hatches can allow seawater into the cargo hold, creating the dangerous “free surface effect,” where shifting water reduces stability and increases the likelihood of listing or capsize.
Equally concerning are repairs required to sea chest valves, valve boxes, suction boxes, and overboard strainers. Failure of any of those components could allow water into the engine room, causing flooding, loss of propulsion, severe listing, and ultimately capsize.
The repair schedule further requires ultrasonic thickness testing of the hull—a specialised inspection used to determine whether corrosion has reduced the steel plating below safe operating standards. Mohamed said the results of any such testing should now be made public.
The documents also call for significant work to the propulsion and steering systems, including repairs to propeller shafts, stern tubes, propellers, steering ram seals, rudder blades, and rudder stocks. Additional work includes cleaning service tanks and replacing zinc anodes designed to protect the vessel’s underwater steel structure from corrosion.
Taken together, the documents describe a vessel requiring extensive work before returning to service.
“If they were not repaired and independently certified, the vessel should not have been carrying passengers,” Mohamed said.
For Gopaul, the significance of the documents extends beyond maintenance records.
“If the Government’s own documents recommended these repairs before the vessel returned to service, then the central question is unavoidable: why was the MV Barima carrying passengers instead of undergoing repairs in dry dock?” he said. “The investigation cannot stop with the crew. It must determine who knew the vessel’s condition, who authorised it to sail, and whether passengers were knowingly placed in harm’s way.”
The tender documents should become a central focus of the official investigation. If they accurately reflect the vessel’s condition before its final voyage, the public deserves answers as to whether the identified deficiencies were remedied, whether the MV Barima was properly certified as seaworthy, who authorized it to carry passengers, and whether regulatory and ministerial oversight failed before the vessel ever left the wharf.
