MV Barima insurance questions need answers

Dear Editor,

As Guyana mourns the victims of the MV Barima tragedy, a question that has received far too little public attention is whether the vessel — and the passengers and cargo it carried — was properly insured, and if so, to what extent.

The MV Barima was an 87-year-old government-operated ferry under the Transport and Harbours Department, regulated by the Maritime Administration Department, and ultimately answerable to the Ministry of Public Works. Given that the vessel routinely carried well over a hundred passengers along with hundreds of tonnes of cargo on an open-ocean route, it is reasonable for the public to expect that adequate marine insurance — covering hull and machinery, passenger liability, loss of life and injury, and cargo — was in place.

To date, no official has publicly confirmed:

1. Whether the MV Barima carried a valid marine insurance policy at the time it sank;
2. The name of the insurer and the type of coverage held (hull, protection and indemnity, passenger liability, cargo);
3. The monetary limits of that coverage, and whether they are sufficient to compensate the families of the dead and missing, as well as survivors who lost property; and
4. Whether the government, as owner and operator of the vessel, holds any separate liability exposure beyond what an insurance policy would cover.

These are not idle questions. Dozens of families have lost loved ones, and many more are still awaiting news of the missing. They deserve to know, clearly and soon, what financial protection existed for the very real risks this vessel carried every time it left the wharf — and what recourse they will have if that protection proves inadequate.

International precedent shows how consequential this question can be. When the Costa Concordia capsized off Italy in 2012, killing 32 people, the cruise line and its insurers eventually paid out sums ranging from a flat $12,600 offered to uninjured survivors to multi-million-euro settlements for the families of the dead, with the total economic cost of the disaster — including compensation and insurance claims — estimated at around €2 billion. Similarly, after South Korea’s Sewol ferry disaster in 2014, which killed 304 people, the government’s first compensation offer amounted to roughly $380,000 per deceased student, and a court later ordered additional payments from the state and the ferry operator, with officials noting that total compensation could rise further once insurance payouts and a public contribution fund were factored in. In both cases, the scale and speed of compensation ultimately depended on what insurance coverage existed, who was found liable, and whether victims accepted early settlements or pursued the courts for more.

Guyana should not have to relearn these lessons the hard way. I urge the Ministry of Public Works, the Transport and Harbours Department, and the Maritime Administration Department to make information on the MV Barima’s insurance status public without delay, as part of the broader inquiry already under way into the causes of this disaster. Transparency on this point is owed to the victims’ families, and to every citizen who continues to rely on government-operated ferries for transport in this country.

Editor’s note: The Minister of Public Works at a press conference on Tuesday said that the vessel was not insured as the government operates as the insurer of public transport.