Dear Editor,
As I noted in my previous statement of June 4th, on the safety of workers in our mining camps, backdams and interior locations, pointing out that Guyana has so far recorded 13 workplace fatalities and 64 non-fatal workplace incidents between January and April 2026. By May, at least four mining-related deaths had already been recorded, including miner Ryan Roberts who died on May 17th when a pit collapsed on him in Chi Chi Backdam in Chinoweing, Region 7.
Two miners died today at St. Elizabeth Backdam, Mahdia, Franky Hussain and Neunes Da Silva. Less than two years ago, on August 17, 2024, two other miners, Imran Blake and Sherwayne Joseph, were killed in a pit collapse at the same location. Four lives lost at the same site, yet where is the accountability? Who owns this mining operation, and how was it allowed to continue without the highest level of scrutiny after the first tragedy? If proper monitoring, enforcement, and safety oversight had been in place following the 2024 deaths, would two more families be mourning today? Guyanese deserve answers.
We all accept that mining is a dangerous occupation. What is increasingly difficult to accept, however, is the recurring pattern of pit collapses, workplace accidents, and fatalities despite what the government claims to be the best efforts from agencies such as GGMC.
The Ministry of Labour is responsible for protecting workers. The Guyana Geology and Mines Commission is responsible for ensuring compliance with mining regulations and safety standards. Yet tragedy too often appears to be followed by investigations, fancy speeches, and promises.
The expansion of Guyana’s mining industry must be matched by a corresponding investment in technical capacity and oversight. More mining engineers, geotechnical specialists, mine inspectors, occupational safety officers and trained technicians are not optional additions to the sector. They are essential safeguards against loss of life. If we are to continue benefiting from the wealth generated by our natural resources, then we must also ensure that those charged with oversight possess the personnel, training, equipment and resources necessary to execute their mandate effectively.
The question before the country is not whether these agencies exist.
The question is whether they have been adequately equipped and empowered to prevent these tragedies before they occur. According to the 2025 organisational charts of both the GGMC and EPA, staff shortages are reported in several departments.
The public is also entitled to answers on matters that have remained unresolved for months. The Minister of Labour publicly indicated that the report concerning worker complaints and labour issues at Guyana Goldfields had been completed but that he was unable to review it because he and members of his staff were attending a training programme at the time.
Workers and the public were assured that the matter would receive attention. Months later, those workers are still waiting. We therefore ask: is the Minister still attending that training programme? If not, what were the findings of the report, what recommendations were made and what actions have been taken? Similar questions remain regarding the investigation into the quarrying sector, including concerns raised last month about labour conditions and the treatment of Indian workers at a quarry in Region 7. The public deserves to know the outcome of these investigations, who was held accountable and what corrective measures were implemented.
The men and women who labour in our backdams, camps and mining districts contribute significantly to Guyana’s economic prosperity. They deserve more than condolences after tragedy strikes. They deserve the assurance that every reasonable measure is being taken to protect their lives before disaster occurs. Investigations are important, but investigations without conclusions, findings without publication, as in the case of Goldfields, also promises without action ultimately erode public confidence.
The Ministers and their oversight agencies will not only be judged on how they respond after a worker dies, but on their ability, and if they possess the capacity, commitment, and resolve to prevent that death in the first place.