Dear Editor,
The public conversation around the MV Barima tragedy has, understandably, blurred two processes that are fundamentally different in purpose, standard of proof, and consequence: the Commission of Inquiry (COI) and the murder charges now before the courts. I write to clarify that distinction, because conflating the two risks damaging both.
The COI is a fact-finding body. Its mandate is to establish what happened — the vessel’s seaworthiness, embarkation and manifest procedures, cargo stowage, availability of life-saving equipment, and the adequacy of regulatory oversight by the Transport and Harbours Department. A commission of inquiry does not determine guilt or innocence; it produces findings and recommendations aimed at institutional accountability and reform, on the balance of probabilities or even a lower threshold of satisfaction. Witnesses before a COI can generally be compelled to answer, precisely because the object is truth-finding, not punishment.
The criminal prosecution is an entirely different animal. To convict Captain Kevin Price, Chief Mate Rondell Roberts, and Goods Superintendent Delon Granderson of murder, the State must prove — beyond a reasonable doubt — not merely that they were negligent or that the vessel was unsafe, but that each accused possessed the specific intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. That is an exceptionally high bar, and one that legal commentators have already questioned given the facts reported so far: an overloaded vessel and a decision to proceed with a voyage are, on their face, more consistent with negligence or recklessness than with an intention to kill, particularly where the captain and mate themselves were aboard and at risk.
This is why the timing and sequencing of the two processes matter so much. If the accused invoke their right against self-incrimination before the COI — as they are entitled to do while murder charges are pending — the commission may be denied precisely the testimony it most needs to establish the truth for the Guyanese public. Conversely, if the COI proceeds first and produces findings implicating the men, that could complicate their right to a fair trial. The Director of Public Prosecutions has said the two processes can run in parallel, but “can” is not the same as “without friction.” Careful case management will be required to protect both the public’s right to know and the accused’s right to a fair trial.
None of this is to prejudge whether murder is the right charge, or the wrong one. It is simply to say: a COI answers “what went wrong and how do we stop it happening again,” while a criminal court answers “did these specific individuals commit this specific crime, with this specific intent.” The nation deserves answers to both questions — but conflating them, or expecting one process to substitute for the other, will serve neither justice nor the truth that the victims’ families are owed.