Dear Mr. President,
There are defining moments in the life of every nation. Moments when history pauses and asks not merely whether leaders possessed constitutional authority, but whether they exercised that authority with wisdom, humility, compassion, and an unwavering commitment to democracy.
The MV Barima tragedy is one such moment.
It is the darkest maritime disaster in the history of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana. It has claimed the lives of dozens of our fellow citizens, left many others unaccounted for, devastated families across our country and the Guyanese diaspora, and shaken the conscience of our nation.
This tragedy belongs to no political party.
It belongs to every Guyanese.
That is why your declaration of national mourning was both appropriate and necessary. By declaring days of national mourning, you acknowledged that this disaster transcended politics and united the nation in grief.
It is therefore deeply troubling that the process established to uncover the truth has not reflected that same spirit of national unity.
Mr. President, I acknowledge that the Constitution grants you the legal authority to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. However, constitutional authority must never be confused with constitutional wisdom.
A President should aspire not merely to satisfy the minimum legal requirement but to uphold the higher constitutional values of democracy, inclusion, accountability and national unity.
The Constitution of Guyana recognises that sovereignty belongs to the people. It further provides that the principal objective of the political system is to establish an inclusive democracy by increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State. These constitutional principles remind every Government that public confidence is strengthened when decisions of profound national importance are made through consultation rather than unilateral action.
You are the President of every Guyanese.
You are not only the President of those who voted for your party.
You are equally the President of those who voted for the parliamentary Opposition, those who supported smaller political parties that did not obtain parliamentary representation, and even those who exercised their democratic right not to vote.
Every citizen matters.
Every vote matters.
Every voice matters.
This Commission of Inquiry is not simply another administrative appointment. It will determine how the greatest maritime tragedy in our nation’s history is investigated. It will examine the actions of Government agencies.
It will determine whether negligence, misconduct, institutional failures or dereliction of duty contributed to the deaths of our fellow citizens.
Its legitimacy therefore depends not only upon the qualifications of its members but also upon public confidence in the manner in which it was established.
That confidence has now been seriously undermined.
Recently, when Guyana faced renewed tensions arising from Venezuela’s claim to our territory, your Government recognised the importance of national unity.
The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Aubrey Norton, and his parliamentary team were engaged.
Parliament played an important role.
Political differences were placed aside because the Government recognised that defending Guyana required a united national response.
What has changed?
Why was national unity considered indispensable in defending our territorial integrity but apparently unnecessary in establishing a Commission of Inquiry into the worst maritime tragedy our nation has ever experienced?
The Guyanese people deserve an answer.
We also recall the recent public statement made by Prime Minister Brigadier (Ret’d) Mark Phillips when asked whether the parliamentary Opposition would be involved in establishing the Commission of Inquiry.
The Prime Minister stated that the Cabinet would determine whether the Opposition’s request was a reasonable one.
Your subsequent announcement appointing a five-member Commission without consultation can reasonably be interpreted as a decision that the request of the parliamentary Opposition was not considered reasonable.
With the greatest respect, we believe that conclusion would be mistaken.
How can the parliamentary Opposition be recognised and thanked for assisting during the search, rescue and recovery efforts, while simultaneously being excluded from participating in the establishment of the very inquiry that will determine how this tragedy occurred?
National unity cannot be requested during recovery efforts yet ignored during the pursuit of accountability.
We further note that the first calls for an independent Commission of Inquiry did not originate solely from the Government.
Political parties, civil society organisations, the parliamentary Opposition, the Alliance For Change, the Guyana Human Rights Association and many ordinary Guyanese publicly called for an independent investigation.
The Guyana Human Rights Association even proposed that appointments to the Commission should be shared between the President and the Leader of the Opposition in order to maximise public confidence.
The parliamentary Opposition has also called for Parliament to debate and recommend the Terms of Reference and for the involvement of the International Maritime Organization and other internationally recognised maritime experts.
These proposals deserved careful consideration.
They deserved consultation.
They deserved respect.
Instead, appointments were announced before Parliament had any opportunity to debate the issue.
Mr. President, consultation does not weaken executive authority.
Consultation strengthens legitimacy.
Listening does not diminish leadership.
Listening defines leadership.
The Constitution may not expressly require consultation before appointing a Commission of Inquiry.
However, nowhere does it prohibit consultation.
Nothing prevented your Government from inviting written submissions from parliamentary parties.
Nothing prevented consultations with survivors.
Nothing prevented meetings with families who lost loved ones.
Nothing prevented engagement with civil society organisations.
Nothing prevented discussions with the Guyana Bar Association, the trade union movement, the religious community, maritime professionals, academics, international maritime experts or the diplomatic community.
Imagine the confidence such a process would have inspired.
Imagine the healing it could have begun.
Instead, many Guyanese now question whether the Commission belongs to the nation or to the Executive alone.
That perception is avoidable.
It is not too late.
Accordingly, we respectfully call upon you to suspend the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry and initiate an urgent consultative process involving:
- The parliamentary Opposition;
- All parliamentary political parties;
- Representatives of survivors;
- Representatives of families of the deceased and missing;
- Civil society organisations;
- The Guyana Bar Association;
- The trade union movement;
- Religious organisations;
- Maritime experts;
- The International Maritime Organization and other international maritime specialists; and
- Any other stakeholder capable of contributing to a truly independent, credible and transparent inquiry.
Such consultation need not delay justice.
It will strengthen justice.
Mr. President, this is your final constitutional term in office.
History will not remember only that you established a Commission of Inquiry. History will remember how you established it.
Future generations will ask whether, in Guyana’s darkest maritime tragedy, the President chose the minimum legal path or the higher democratic path.
Whether he governed through unilateral authority or constitutional statesmanship. Whether he listened.
Whether he united.
Whether he gave every Guyanese confidence that the truth would emerge free from political influence or partisan perception.
There is still time to make that choice.
Finally, this tragedy once again demonstrates the urgent need for comprehensive constitutional reform to strengthen participatory democracy, institutional accountability and meaningful consultation on matters of national importance. The Guyanese people deserve a constitutional framework that encourages governments of every political persuasion to engage Parliament, civil society and citizens in decisions that profoundly affect the nation.
Mr. President, the dead cannot speak.
7
The grieving can.
The survivors can.
The Parliament can.
Civil society can.
The people can.
The Constitution itself calls upon us to build an inclusive democracy where those voices are heard.
Constitutional and international foundations for Consultation and inclusive Governance
While the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana does not expressly require the President to consult the parliamentary Opposition or civil society before appointing a Commission of Inquiry, it equally does not prohibit such consultation. On the contrary, when read as a whole, the Constitution encourages and promotes inclusive democracy, public participation, consultation, transparency, accountability, and respect for representative institutions. These constitutional values, together with Guyana’s international human rights obligations, strongly support an inclusive and consultative approach to matters of profound national importance.
This position is supported by the following constitutional and international provisions: Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana
- Article 9 – Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their elected representatives and democratic institutions.
- Article 13 – Declares that the principal objective of Guyana’s political system is to establish an inclusive democracy by increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State.
- Article 38 – Encourages the participation of citizens and their organisations in the management and development of the nation.
- Article 50 – Recognises Parliament as the supreme democratic organ through which the will of the people is expressed.
- Article 51 – Entrusts Parliament with responsibility for discussing and determining matters affecting the nation.
Guyana’s International Commitments
8
Guyana has also committed itself to principles of participatory democracy and good governance through several international instruments, including:
- Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
- Article 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
- Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- Articles 2 and 6 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which recognise that democracy is strengthened by citizen participation in public affairs. ● The Commonwealth Charter, which commits member states to democracy, participation, transparency, accountability, and responsive governance. ● United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16, which promotes effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.
Accordingly, although the President possesses the constitutional authority to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, the Constitution and Guyana’s international commitments encourage the exercise of that authority through meaningful consultation and inclusive engagement wherever practicable, particularly where the matter concerns a national tragedy affecting the entire country. Such an approach strengthens public confidence, reinforces democratic legitimacy, and promotes national unity.
Respectfully, we urge you to pause, reconsider, consult, and establish a Commission of Inquiry that belongs not merely to the Government, but to the entire nation.
Your truly
Kellion Leps
Acting General President
Bartica United Youth Development Group (BUYDG)
Secretary, Prison Reform and Human Rights Division
