The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Shalimar Ali-Hack, SC, has defended the unprecedented decision to charge three Transport and Harbours Department employees with more than 70 counts of murder over the MV Barima disaster, maintaining that criminal proceedings need not await the findings of a Commission of Inquiry.
While the DPP’s position on the law may be correct, but it leaves unanswered the central question dominating public debate: What evidence supports charging a maritime disaster as murder?
The July 18 sinking of the 87-year-old state-owned ferry is the deadliest maritime disaster in Guyana’s history. Authorities have confirmed 73 deaths, while another 30 people remain missing and are presumed dead. One of the 76 survivors has since succumbed to injuries sustained in the tragedy, bringing the confirmed death toll to 74. Officials believe 179 people were aboard the vessel, although discrepancies in the passenger manifest continue to fuel uncertainty over the actual number of passengers.
On Tuesday, Captain Kevin Price, Chief Mate Rondel Dwayne Roberts and Transport and Harbours Department Goods Superintendent Delon Granderson appeared before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, where they were each charged with 73 counts of murder. Because murder is an indictable offence, the men were not permitted to enter pleas before being remanded to prison. The matter was adjourned to August 3, when it is expected to continue before the court in the Essequibo region.
The Law Allows Parallel Proceedings
Responding to criticism, the DPP said her office, established under Article 187 of the Constitution, exercises its prosecutorial powers independently and is not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.
She said prosecutors reviewed the police investigation, applicable legislation, judicial authorities from the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and public policy considerations before concluding that murder charges were warranted.
Ali-Hack also rejected suggestions that criminal proceedings should have been delayed until after the Commission of Inquiry, noting that parallel proceedings have occurred before in Guyana. On that narrow legal point, the DPP is on firm ground.
A Commission of Inquiry is a fact-finding body established to determine what occurred, identify institutional failures and recommend reforms. It does not determine criminal liability, and there is no legal requirement for prosecutors to await its findings before instituting criminal proceedings.
Government Overlooks International Maritime Practice
However, even as the Government moves ahead with a partisan Commission of Inquiry, it has ignored growing calls for an independent maritime casualty investigation—the internationally recognised process for determining the technical and operational causes of a marine disaster.
Unlike a Commission of Inquiry, a maritime casualty investigation is not designed to assign blame or determine criminal guilt. Conducted under the International Maritime Organisation‘s (IMO) Casualty Investigation Code, its objective is to establish how and why the casualty occurred and to recommend measures to prevent similar tragedies.
Such an investigation would examine whether the MV Barima was seaworthy, whether it suffered mechanical or structural failures, whether it was overloaded or improperly loaded, whether mandatory inspections were properly conducted, whether safety procedures were followed, and whether regulatory or management failures contributed to the sinking.
Those findings could prove invaluable—not only in preventing future disasters, but also in identifying whether responsibility extends beyond the three frontline employees now before the courts.
To date, the Government has remained silent on whether it will commission the internationally accepted maritime safety investigation that typically follows major marine casualties.
The Missing Explanation
The controversy surrounding the prosecution is therefore not about the DPP’s constitutional independence or the timing of the charges. It is about the choice of offence.
Under Guyana’s common law, murder carries one of the highest evidentiary burdens in criminal law. Prosecutors must prove beyond reasonable doubt not only that the accused caused the deaths, but that they acted with malice aforethought—the legal intent traditionally associated with an intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.
The DPP’s public statement identifies no evidence suggesting that Captain Price, Roberts or Granderson possessed that state of mind.
Negligence, incompetence, poor judgment or even gross recklessness—even if ultimately established—do not automatically amount to murder.
Technical Findings Could Shape the Criminal Case
Although a maritime casualty investigation is not a legal prerequisite for criminal charges, its findings could prove highly significant.
If the investigation concludes that the tragedy resulted from an unseaworthy vessel, longstanding maintenance failures, defective equipment, inadequate inspections, regulatory lapses or systemic management failures, those conclusions could reshape public understanding of the disaster and clarify whether criminal responsibility lies solely with the crew or extends to those responsible for maintaining, certifying and authorising the ferry to operate.
Those are precisely the questions that maritime safety experts say should be addressed through an independent maritime casualty investigation to establish the technical causes of the disaster and identify measures to prevent a similar tragedy.
Broader Accountability
The prosecution has also reignited questions about accountability beyond the bridge of the aging state-owned ferry.
Documents that surfaced after the tragedy suggested the MV Barima had experienced maintenance concerns and was due for dry docking. Questions have also been raised about seaworthiness certification, inspection records, passenger manifest discrepancies and the Government’s oversight of the Transport and Harbours Department.
Whether those issues contributed to the disaster remains unknown.
Ultimately, the DPP’s authority to institute criminal proceedings is not in dispute.
Whether the evidence can satisfy the exceptionally high legal threshold required for murder—and whether responsibility for Guyana’s worst maritime disaster extends beyond the three men now before the courts—are questions that will ultimately be answered by the courts and, perhaps just as importantly, by investigations the Government has yet to undertake.
