By Aubrey Subner- Guyana is a sovereign state, a member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Commonwealth, and a participant in the inter-American human rights system. Its constitutional order, democratic institutions and international obligations should therefore command the attention of the regional and international community.
Yet, as successive tragedies claim lives, families demand answers and serious questions emerge about institutional accountability, an uncomfortable question persists: Where is CARICOM? Where is the Organisation of American States (OAS)? Where is the Commonwealth? Where are the international human rights institutions that routinely champion democracy, the rule of law and accountability?
One is tempted to ask; Is Guyana exempt from the standards these institutions profess to uphold?
This is not a call for external interference in Guyana’s sovereign affairs. It is a call for principled active regional engagement and the consistent application of international standards. Membership in a regional community entails responsibilities that extend beyond diplomatic courtesies, ceremonial visits and political declarations.
CARICOM’s foundational commitments include democracy, good governance, human rights, the rule of law and respect for fundamental freedoms. These principles must apply irrespective of which political party holds office.
Recent events in Guyana raise legitimate questions about whether accountability and institutional oversight are receiving the attention they deserve.
As it now stands, there is a troubling pattern of unanswered questions. Here are six incidents that have profoundly affected the national consciousness:
- The Mahdia dormitory fire (May 2023)
Twenty children died in the devastating Mahdia Secondary School dormitory fire. A Presidential Commission of Inquiry identified serious institutional and emergency-response deficiencies. While recommendations were made and assistance extended to affected families, questions remain about institutional responsibility, implementation of recommendations and safeguards against recurrence.
- The killing of Quindon Bacchus (June 2022)
Twenty-five-year-old Quindon Bacchus was fatally shot by a police officer during an operation at Haslington. In 2023, the High Court awarded his family $24 million in damages. Although the government subsequently declined to appeal, broader questions remain about police use of lethal force, accountability and the consequences of misconduct by state agents.
- The Mahaicony police shootings (January 2025)
Frederick Williams and Roger Erwin Pierre were fatally shot by police at Airy Hall, Mahaicony. Post-mortem examinations reportedly established that both died from multiple gunshot wounds. By April 2025, their families were still awaiting investigative findings, according to Stabroek News. Transparent and credible investigations are essential whenever citizens die during law-enforcement operations.
- The deaths of Ronaldo Peters and Keon Fogenay in Linden (April 2025)
The deaths of 21-year-old Ronaldo Peters, following an encounter with police, and Keon Fogenay, a father of four, during protest-related confrontations, triggered public unrest and renewed scrutiny of policing and state accountability. The government announced Regional Security System (RSS) support for investigations. However, investigations must produce transparent findings and appropriate consequences wherever wrongdoing is established.
- The death of 11-year-old Adrianna Younge (April 2025)
Adrianna Younge’s death, after her disappearance and the discovery of her body in a hotel swimming pool in Region Three, generated widespread public concern. Although an autopsy involving overseas expertise determined drowning as the cause of death, questions surrounding the investigation and police communications fuelled public distrust and protests. The episode exposed the importance of institutional transparency in maintaining public confidence.
- The MV Barima disaster (July 2026)
The sinking of the MV Barima on July 18, 2026, reportedly claimed 73 lives, with approximately 30 people missing and 76 survivors. Allegations concerning the vessel’s condition, passenger and cargo arrangements, possible overloading and mechanical problems demand rigorous investigation. Three crew members were subsequently charged with murder, and a Commission of Inquiry was established.
But criminal proceedings and official inquiries alone cannot satisfy the public’s legitimate demand for truth. Families deserve the recovery and identification of their loved ones, transparent findings and the dignity of knowing that every reasonable effort has been made to establish what happened.
CARICOM did express condolences following the Mahdia tragedy, and regional assistance was involved in the Linden investigations through the RSS. These interventions should be acknowledged. Nevertheless, the broader question remains: Is regional solidarity fulfilled by condolences and investigative assistance, or does it also require sustained engagement on institutional accountability, human rights and democratic governance?
CARICOM must be able to address concerns within its own membership without appearing selective or politically expedient. This does not mean prejudging investigations, undermining national sovereignty or declaring individuals guilty without evidence. It means consistently advocating independent investigations, public disclosure of findings, due process and meaningful institutional reform.
International silence carries consequences. It risks normalising impunity, weakening public confidence in democratic institutions and undermining the credibility of regional organisations. It may also deepen social divisions in a country whose complex political and ethnic history makes equal protection under the law particularly important.
Moreover, Guyana’s international reputation cannot rest solely on economic growth, petroleum production and infrastructure development. Sustainable development and international confidence also depend on accountable institutions, respect for human rights and the impartial administration of justice.
The OAS, Commonwealth and relevant international human rights mechanisms should therefore maintain principled engagement, within their respective mandates, and encourage compliance with Guyana’s international obligations.
Families who have lost loved ones should not have to wage lonely battles for accountability. Citizens should not have to question whether the protection of their rights depends on political circumstances.
Whilst Guyana’s sovereignty must be respected, it must never become a shield against accountability.
CARICOM and the wider international community must recognise that defending democratic governance is not simply about responding to crises elsewhere. It also requires the courage and consistency to uphold those principles within their own regional and institutional family.
The question is no longer simply where CARICOM and the international community are. It is whether they are prepared to demonstrate, through sustained and principled action, that democracy, human rights and the rule of law apply to every member state, including Guyana.
