A public dispute has emerged over the condition of the recently opened Bharrat Jagdeo Demerara River Bridge, with the Vigilant Political Action Committee (VPAC) and the Ministry of Public Works offering sharply different assessments of visible irregularities on the structure and its approaches.
Three days ago, VPAC leader Dorwain Bess raised alarm in a social media post, claiming the bridge was already exhibiting signs of premature defects less than four months after opening.
“New Demerara River Bridge already showing signs of defects! Less than four months after opening, visible surface depressions, uneven roadway transitions and other signs of premature distress have appeared on the Bharrat Jagdeo Demerara River Bridge, raising serious concerns about construction quality and adherence to accepted engineering standards.”
Bess argued that the observed defects could not be dismissed as cosmetic, warning that early distress may indicate “deeper structural or geotechnical problems,” particularly given the bridge’s heavy commercial traffic and daily commuter use. VPAC called on the Ministry of Public Works to activate the defects liability provisions in the construction contract, stressing that repairs should be borne by the contractor rather than taxpayers.
“With the project funded largely by external loans to be repaid by the people of Guyana, the State has a heightened duty to enforce strict contractual compliance.”
VPAC further urged independent technical assessments and transparent disclosure of findings, stating that failure to do so would amount to “a failure of stewardship over public resources and public safety.”
The Ministry of Public Works swiftly rejected claims of structural problems. Public Works Minister Juan Edghill said he instructed engineers, contractors and consultants to review the reports and later visited the site himself. According to the minister, the issue being highlighted was not on the bridge proper.
“Where you are seeing this effect in the asphaltic work, it is not even the bridge. This is the road to the bridge,” he said, emphasising that the bridge itself is a concrete structure surfaced with asphalt.
In a formal statement, the ministry assured the public that “All monitoring data indicate that the bridge structure remains safe, stable and fully reliable for public use.” It said technical investigations showed that pavement undulations observed on the side span of the main bridge were “limited to localised surface flatness variations arising from the asphalt pavement construction process,” affecting only the surface layer and not the bridge’s structural integrity or load-bearing capacity.
VPAC, however, rejected the ministry’s characterisation and returned to the site to reinforce its position. In a subsequent response, the group said that while it welcomed confirmation that remedial works would be done during the defects liability period, attempts to minimise the issue were “neither technically convincing nor professionally responsible.”
“Surface pavement undulations or the ‘waviness’ on a brand new major bridge is not an anticipated inconvenience. Such noticeable irregularities so soon after completion is not routine and should not be normalised as ‘something that happens all the time.’”
VPAC pointed to the ministry’s own reference to “differential settlement between sand embankment fill, and the concrete abutment structure,” arguing that such risks are well known in bridge engineering and should have been anticipated and mitigated during design and construction.
“Differential settlement at transition points is a known risk in bridge building and is factored into the design.If these defects were genuinely expected, then their early manifestation raises serious questions about whether adequate geotechnical investigations, settlement modelling, and construction controls were properly executed.”
According to VPAC, whether the defects were expected or unexpected, both scenarios undermine assurances that there is “nothing to worry about.” The group called for a detailed technical explanation supported by data and independent engineering verification, rather than what it described as politically framed reassurance.
The debate escalated further earlier this morning after Bess again visited the bridge and posted a more urgent warning:
“NOT JUST ASPHALT — THE STRUCTURE IS AT RISK !
Damage beneath the asphalt points to damage in the structure.
If the structure is affected, is the bridge affected?
Does this mean other areas may also be structurally compromised?
VPAC recommends a qualified engineering inspection to advise the minister and the nation.”
The bridge represents a US$262 million investment funded largely through external loans, and the dispute has intensified public scrutiny over construction quality, oversight and transparency. The government maintains that the bridge is safe and that the observed issues are superficial and manageable. VPAC continues to press for independent inspections and fuller disclosure, arguing that early signs of distress on a new flagship project demand rigorous, non-political technical scrutiny.
