Attorney-at-law Dexter Todd on Thursday claimed the State abandoned the legal framework governing maritime disasters by charging three MV Barima crew members with murder before completing the statutory investigation required under the Guyana Shipping Act, arguing that the prosecution is legally premature and vulnerable to challenge.
Speaking at a press conference on July 30, 2026, Todd, who represents Captain Kevin Price, Chief Mate Rondel Roberts, and Goods Superintendent Delon Granderson, contended that investigators and prosecutors abandoned the legal framework governing maritime disasters by proceeding directly to common law murder charges before determining the cause of the tragedy through the investigative mechanisms set out in the Shipping Act.
The charges stem from the July 18 sinking of the state-owned MV Barima, one of Guyana’s worst maritime disasters in recent history. The vessel capsized while on its scheduled voyage from Georgetown to Port Kaituma, Region One, with the Government stating that 116 passengers and 17 crew members—a total of 133 people—were on board. However, survivor accounts and estimates from relatives and opposition figures have suggested the actual number aboard may have been significantly higher.
The tragedy claimed reportedly 53 lives, while 76 survivors have been officially verified, and one subsequently died. Despite repeated calls from grieving families, civil society groups, maritime stakeholders and Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed—who has publicly offered to raise the vessel at no cost to the State—the Government has maintained its decision not to recover the MV Barima.
That decision has fuelled growing public anger, with critics arguing that the vessel itself may contain crucial evidence capable of determining precisely what caused the disaster.
Todd argued that the criminal prosecution of the crew was initiated before the legally required statutory investigation into the marine casualty had even begun.
“This is a marine casualty governed by the Guyana Shipping Act,” Todd said, maintaining that Parliament enacted a comprehensive legal framework specifically to investigate maritime disasters before questions of criminal responsibility are addressed.
Citing Sections 427 and 428 of the Guyana Shipping Act of 1998, Todd explained that the legislation requires a preliminary inquiry by qualified maritime experts appointed by the responsible Minister. If warranted, that inquiry must be followed by a formal investigation conducted by a board into the causes and circumstances of the casualty.
According to Todd, those procedures are intended to establish the facts surrounding the incident, identify regulatory failures, determine whether statutory obligations were met, and only then consider whether criminal liability arises.
Instead, he argued, authorities bypassed that statutory process and immediately resorted to common law murder charges.
“The crew members were charged under the common law,” Todd said, adding that where Parliament has enacted legislation specifically governing marine casualties, investigators and prosecutors should not circumvent that framework.
The defence, he confirmed, intends to challenge the charges before the courts.
Todd also criticised public statements suggesting that members of the crew were intoxicated at the time of the tragedy.
He described those allegations as “irresponsible,” unsupported by evidence and capable of prejudicing the legal process.
“Those allegations have not been established in any court,” he stressed, warning that public commentary from senior officials risks undermining the presumption of innocence guaranteed to every accused person.
The attorney also rejected the Director of Public Prosecutions’ position that the murder case can proceed simultaneously with the Government-appointed Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the sinking.
He argued that parallel proceedings create a serious constitutional problem because the accused could effectively be compelled to testify before the Commission while defending themselves against murder charges in the High Court.
“The criminal case and the Commission of Inquiry could interfere with one another,” Todd said, noting that the Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves.
Beyond that, Todd disclosed that the defence is examining whether the Commission itself was lawfully established.
Among the questions being considered are whether President Irfaan Ali had the legal authority to establish the Commission instead of the Minister identified under the Shipping Act, whether the Commission satisfies the statutory requirements governing marine casualty investigations, and whether its composition and Terms of Reference comply with the legislation.
Those issues, he indicated, may themselves become the subject of legal proceedings.
The legal team has also not determined whether the three accused will participate in the Commission of Inquiry, citing concerns that any evidence given there could prejudice their defence in the criminal proceedings.
Todd further revealed that, based on information available to the defence, Chief Mate Rondel Roberts was still completing the practical sea-time component required for certification and had allegedly been assigned to the vessel for that purpose.
If regulations required a fully certified officer for a voyage of that nature, Todd argued, responsibility for ensuring properly qualified personnel were assigned rested with those responsible for staffing and operating the vessel—not with the officer undergoing practical training.
Questions surrounding certification, competence, regulatory compliance, staffing and the vessel’s operational condition, he maintained, are precisely the issues the Shipping Act requires investigators to determine before criminal responsibility can properly be considered.
With the murder case now before the courts and the Commission of Inquiry preparing to begin its work, Todd said the defence will challenge what it considers a fundamental departure from the legal process established by Parliament. At the heart of that challenge is the contention that the State chose to prosecute first and investigate later—a sequence the defence argues is contrary to the Guyana Shipping Act and one that could ultimately determine the legality of the criminal proceedings against Captain Kevin Price, Chief Mate Rondel Roberts and Goods Superintendent Delon Granderson.
