Member of Parliament and attorney-at-law Amanza Walton has challenged the legal basis for exempting the MV Barima from passenger ship safety certification, arguing that the Commission of Inquiry must establish whether the vessel was surveyed and legally cleared to carry passengers before it sailed.
In a statement dated October 24, Walton, who is a maritime lawyer, said she submitted legal arguments to the Commission on October 23, following a Department of Public Information (DPI) report the previous day stating that government-operated ferries, including the Barima, “do not require certificates of seaworthiness to operate”. The position was attributed to the Commission’s counsel.
Walton said she had asked the Commission to clarify whether it had made a determination on the issue and to hear submissions from interested parties before reaching a conclusion.
At the centre of the dispute is Section 265(1) of the Guyana Shipping Act 1998, which states that every passenger ship must carry a valid Passenger Ship Safety Certificate before proceeding to sea from a Guyanese port. The certificate must specify the vessel’s operating limits and the number of passengers it is permitted to carry.
The provision is set out in the Guyana Shipping Act
Walton argued that the Barima’s role in carrying fare-paying passengers and freight for hire distinguishes it from government vessels used exclusively for non-commercial duties.
“The Barima operated commercially, carrying fare-paying passengers and freight for hire. State ownership does not place that service in the same legal category as non-commercial customs, police or border patrol operations.”
She cited the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and provisions of the Guyana Shipping Act to argue that government ownership does not, by itself, settle whether a vessel qualifies for an exemption.
Walton also pointed to Regulation 11 of the Guyana Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations, arguing that commercially operated government ships are subject to registration requirements. She called on the Commission to obtain the Barima’s registration record and supporting application documents.
Questions over the exemption
The MP, who is Leader of the Forward Guyana Movement (FGM), said she had asked the Commission’s counsel to identify the specific legal provision supporting the reported exemption. If Regulation 6(2)(a) of the Harbours Regulations is being relied upon, she argued, its application to navigation within a named harbour would not automatically settle the requirements governing the Barima’s commercial voyage at sea.
She further called for the Commission to obtain any safety certificate and survey records, determine the source of the vessel’s passenger and loading limits, and establish whether those limits counted passengers alone or everyone aboard.
“A figure in an emergency response plan does not establish that a valid certificate existed.”
She said the inquiry must establish whether the vessel had a valid certificate and complied with its conditions. If no certificate existed and no lawful exemption applied, she argued, the Commission should investigate possible non-compliance and why the vessel was permitted to sail.
Families still deserve answers
The MV Barima capsized and sank on July 18, 2026. The resulting tragedy prompted the establishment of an independent Commission of Inquiry tasked with examining the vessel’s condition, compliance with maritime safety requirements, loading and passeneger operations, and any failures that contributed to the disaster. Commission’s terms of reference.
The Commission has not, in the material cited here, issued a final determination on the disputed certification question. Walton said she remained confident in its work and was willing to contribute her maritime-law expertise.
She concluded that survivors and bereaved families must receive a clear explanation of whether the vessel met the law’s requirements.
“The people who travelled on the Barima, and the families of those who died, are entitled to know whether the vessel was surveyed and certified as the law required. They are also entitled to an explanation of any failure to comply.”
The Commission’s findings will be critical in determining whether the Barima’s certification and regulatory oversight met the applicable legal requirements, and whether any failures contributed to the tragedy.
