Government National Security Adviser Captain Gerry Gouveia has come under intense criticism after publishing on his Facebook page, a lengthy statement placing responsibility for a vessel’s departure “solely” on its captain, even as three MV Barima employees face murder charges and a Commission of Inquiry into the tragedy is pending.
The intervention has raised serious questions about whether a senior adviser to President Irfaan Ali is attempting to shape public opinion on behalf of the Government before the evidence has been tested in court or examined by the Commission of Inquiry.
Captain Kevin Price, Chief Mate Rondell Dwayne Roberts and Goods Superintendent Delon Granderson have been charged with murder following the capsizing of the MV Barima. All three men are entitled to the constitutional protection of the presumption of innocence.
Gouveia nevertheless published what he described as a “Captain’s Pre-Departure Safety and Seaworthiness Checklist,” accompanied by a statement titled “The Sacred Responsibility of a Captain.”
“The office of Captain carries with it the highest level of professional responsibility,” Gouveia wrote. “Before authorizing the departure of any vessel, the Captain must be personally satisfied that the vessel is seaworthy, properly loaded, adequately manned, and capable of completing the intended voyage safely.”
He then made the sweeping declaration: “The decision to sail rests solely with the Captain.”
The post included a professionally designed, 28-point checklist covering vessel loading, passenger and cargo manifests, stability, propulsion, steering, navigation equipment, emergency communications, life jackets, life rafts, watertight integrity and regulatory compliance.
However, Gouveia did not say whether the document was an official Transport and Harbours Department checklist, whether it existed before the MV Barima disaster, whether it was ever given to the vessel’s captain or whether the Government provided the equipment, training and institutional support necessary for its implementation.
The post appeared to place almost total responsibility on the captain while saying little about the obligations of the vessel’s owner, the Transport and Harbours Department, the Maritime Administration Department, the responsible ministers and the State’s regulatory and emergency-response systems.
That omission provoked a fierce response from several public figures.
Forward Guyana parliamentarian Amanza Walton-Desir challenged both the timing and propriety of the intervention.
“Gerry this is unacceptable. You are the NSA. Is this matter not before the court? Is there not a Commission of Inquiry?” Walton-Desir asked.
Former Public Infrastructure Minister and parliamentarian Annette Ferguson also questioned why Gouveia was making such a statement before the promised inquiry begins its work.
“The only response from me is a simple question: If a Commission of Inquiry (COI) is imminent, why be preemptive?” Ferguson wrote.
Opposition parliamentarian Coretta McDonald questioned whether Gouveia, as the President’s National Security Adviser, had previously taken steps to ensure that captains employed within the public ferry system received the professional training necessary to meet the standards he was now promoting.
“Thanks for the information you’re sharing now. However as the Presidential Advisor on National Security, did you conduct Professional Development Sessions with any of these captains? Or your portfolio only speak to external security?” McDonald asked.
Francis Michael Bailey went further, alleging that the Government had failed the three accused employees and that the MV Barima lacked crucial navigational equipment.
“You failed those men. That boat only had a working compass. No depth meter, no working ruddometer and orders would come from above,” Bailey wrote.
That serious claim has not yet been independently established. It nevertheless identifies precisely the type of evidence that should be investigated by qualified marine casualty experts, examined before the Commission of Inquiry and tested in court.
Public commentator Lurlene Nestor issued a blunt response to Gouveia’s attempt to concentrate attention on the vessel’s captain: “Tell captains Edgill and Indar!”
Her remark redirected attention towards Minister of Public Works Juan Edghill and Minister of Public Utilities and Aviation Deodat Indar, who have faced sustained public calls for accountability following the tragedy.
The State cannot escape its responsibilities by publishing a checklist after citizens have died and workers have been charged with murder.
A captain cannot repair navigational instruments that were never provided or had ceased functioning. He cannot personally certify the seaworthiness of a government-owned vessel. He cannot replace defective equipment without the authority and resources of the vessel’s owner. Nor can he compensate for failures in inspection, maintenance, regulatory enforcement, passenger management or emergency response.
If the checklist published by Gouveia was official government policy, then the administration must disclose when it was created, which agency approved it, whether it was issued to the captain, what training was provided and whether signed copies were completed before each voyage.
The Government should also release the vessel’s inspection reports, safety certificates, maintenance records, equipment inventory, passenger and cargo records and all documentation showing who authorised the MV Barima to carry passengers.
If the checklist was not an official government document, its publication by the National Security Adviser at this sensitive stage becomes even more troubling.
Gouveia is not merely a private maritime professional offering a general observation. He is a senior adviser to the President and an influential representative of an administration whose ministries, agencies and emergency-response systems are themselves under scrutiny.
His declaration that the decision to sail rested “solely” with the captain therefore risks being interpreted as an attempt to establish a government-friendly narrative before the facts have been independently determined.
The courts must now decide whether the evidence supports the extraordinary murder charges brought against the three employees. The Commission of Inquiry must determine what happened and who carried responsibility across every level of the system.
Neither process should be contaminated by a senior government adviser publicly assigning sole responsibility in advance.
Before telling the nation what the captain should have done, Gouveia and the Government must explain what equipment the State supplied, what defects were reported, what inspections were conducted, who certified the vessel, who directed its operations and what senior officials knew about its condition.
The three accused men are entitled to a fair trial, not a social-media prosecution led by an adviser to the very Government whose failures must also be investigated.
