The Alliance For Change (AFC) is demanding that the authorities reverse a decision not to livestream the Commission of Inquiry into the MV Barima tragedy, warning that the restriction on public access threatens to deepen doubts about the investigation’s independence, transparency and credibility.
In a statement issued on Friday, October 16, the opposition party questioned the Commission’s establishment, the selection of its commissioners and the scope of its terms of reference, arguing that an inquiry into a matter of such national significance must be open to public scrutiny.
The AFC also criticised the absence of consultation with the political Opposition and other relevant stakeholders before the Commission was established, contending that broader engagement was necessary to build confidence in the process.
The party said the decision not to livestream the hearings was particularly concerning given the questions it had raised about the inquiry’s composition and mandate.
“The refusal to provide live public access denies citizens the opportunity to observe the proceedings firsthand and assess for themselves whether the inquiry is being conducted fairly, impartially and without interference,” the AFC stated.
The party acknowledged that legal considerations might justify restricting access to certain evidence but insisted that any limitations must be clearly justified and proportionate.
“They must not become a blanket excuse for conducting a matter of national importance behind closed doors,” the statement said.
The AFC called on the authorities to reconsider the decision and provide the greatest possible level of public access, subject only to legitimate legal restrictions.
Questions over the Commission’s mandate
The AFC’s concerns extend beyond the livestreaming decision. The party questioned whether the Commission’s terms of reference were sufficiently broad to examine the actions and responsibilities of all relevant parties, including senior government officials.
It maintained that the inquiry must be able to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without political interference or restrictions that could prevent relevant questions from being examined.
“Accountability cannot be meaningful if those who may bear responsibility are effectively beyond scrutiny,” the party said.
The AFC also criticised the selection of the commissioners, arguing that the appointment process had failed to inspire the level of public confidence required for an inquiry of this magnitude.
According to the party, the credibility of the Commission will depend not only on its eventual findings but also on whether the public has confidence in the independence of those conducting the investigation.
It argued that greater openness was necessary to demonstrate that the inquiry would examine the evidence impartially and address legitimate concerns about its conduct.
Public access and accountability
The MV Barima incident has prompted calls for answers about the circumstances surrounding the tragedy and the responsibilities of those involved. The Commission’s terms of reference will determine the matters it can investigate and the findings it can make.
The AFC said citizens should not be expected to rely solely on assurances that the inquiry would be fair. Instead, the proceedings should be accessible enough to allow the public to evaluate how the investigation is conducted.
“The people of Guyana deserve more than assurances that the process will be fair. They deserve a process they can see, scrutinise and trust,” the party stated.
The party maintained that any restrictions on broadcasting should be supported by legitimate reasons and should not unnecessarily prevent public scrutiny.
The AFC’s statement did not identify specific legal provisions that would prohibit livestreaming or detail the authorities’ rationale for the decision. Its position was that restrictions must be justified while preserving the public interest in transparency.
AFC calls for reconsideration
The opposition party urged the authorities to reconsider the decision and ensure the greatest possible openness throughout the inquiry.
It said a Commission of Inquiry should serve as a mechanism for establishing the facts and promoting accountability, rather than shielding individuals or institutions from scrutiny.
“A Commission of Inquiry must be a vehicle for truth and accountability, not a shield against scrutiny,” the AFC declared.
The party reaffirmed its commitment to democratic accountability, equal justice and the public’s right to know the truth about matters of national importance.
The dispute over livestreaming adds public access to the broader questions surrounding the Commission’s mandate, composition and independence. The handling of the proceedings, the evidence examined and the eventual findings will be central to public assessment of the inquiry’s credibility.
