Dear Editor,
The Ministry of Public Works’ recent press release on the Bharrat Jagdeo Demerara River Bridge was a master class in bureaucratic reassurance. It confidently declared the structure “safe, stable, and fully reliable,” a message the public desperately needs to hear. Yet, nestled within its technical jargon lies a less comforting truth: a story of deflection that glosses over what appears to be substandard construction on a flagship national project barely four months after its opening.
The ministry attributes the now-public pavement undulations to two causes: “localized surface flatness variations” from the asphalt process and “varying settlement behaviour” where the road meets the bridge. Translated from bureaucratese, this means the road surface was poorly laid, and the fill material at a critical junction was improperly compacted or unsuitable. For a project of this magnitude and cost, completed with great fanfare, these are not minor oversights; they are fundamental failures in execution and quality control.
Let’s be unequivocally clear: The core issue is not the structural safety of the bridge, but the integrity of the narrative being sold to the public. The ministry’s statement, while factually narrow, is a strategic deflection. It isolates these flaws as superficial and expected, when in reality, they are symptomatic of a deeper malady in our approach to national infrastructure.
First, the deflection from accountability. By framing the asphalt issue as a simple construction process variation, the ministry sidesteps a glaring question: Why did this process fail so visibly and so quickly on one of the most scrutinized sections of the most important new bridge in a generation? High-quality, durable pavement is not alchemy; it is a well-understood engineering discipline. Its premature failure points directly to compromised standards, inadequate supervision, or the use of inferior materials. To dismiss it as a mere “variation” is an insult to the public’s intelligence.
Second, the deflection from poor planning and execution. The explanation for the approach abutment settlement is perhaps more damning. Every civil engineer knows the junction between a bridge and the embankment road—the “transition zone”—is a critical point of potential weakness. Modern engineering has developed specific techniques and materials (like controlled low-strength material or geogrid-reinforced fill) to prevent exactly this kind of rapid, differential settlement. Attributing it to the “specific characteristics of this transition zone” is an admission that these characteristics were either poorly designed for or, more likely, improperly addressed during construction. Using ordinary sand fill that compacts and settles so readily is a basic, avoidable error.
The Unasked Questions – The ministry’s calm assurance invites more questions than it answers:
If the asphalt was laid improperly on the side span, what guarantees do we have about its quality on the entire bridge deck and other national projects?
What specific remedial works will the contractor perform, and who will bear the cost? Will the public endure lane closures and delays for a fix that should not have been needed?
Crucially, what disciplinary or contractual repercussions will follow for the parties responsible for this substandard work? Or is “remedial work shortly” the only consequence?
The Bharrat Jagdeo Bridge is more than steel and concrete; it is a symbol of national progress and ambition. When its surface begins to warp and settle within weeks, it shakes public confidence not just in the structure, but in the institutions that built it. The Ministry of Public Works is right to monitor and assure us of the bridge’s skeletal safety. But its duty extends further: to demand and enforce the highest standards of workmanship from contractors, to be transparent about failures, and to hold parties accountable.
We must not allow technical placations to pave over legitimate concerns. The people of Guyana deserve infrastructure that is not only safe but also durable and well-constructed. They deserve answers that go beyond explaining away defects and instead address the root causes of why they occurred. They deserve a ministry that acts as a fierce guardian of quality, not just a spokesperson for damage control.
It is time for the Ministry of Public Works to move beyond managing perceptions and start upholding the standards its name promises. The foundations of public trust, like those of a bridge, require more than just stability—they require integrity, transparency, and an uncompromising commitment to quality. On that score, the recent performance has been anything but smooth.