Dear Editor,
I watched carefully how a partisan group of demonstrators, few in number, held a candlelight vigil, right outside the residence of Public Works Minister Juan Edghill, in South Ruimveldt Gardens, Georgetown. The smattering of people was demanding that Juan Edghill resign, since the MV Barima tragedy occurred with his being the subject Minister who has the ultimate voice in this domain. I was incensed and with valid reasons.
First, grief and empathy for the bereaving community must take precedence. In fact, it should be natural too. In any crises where human lives are lost, a Head of State and his Ministers must (not should) prioritize ‘empathy for victims’ since human lives always take top priority over technical, logistical, or political investigations. A true leader (or leaders as a whole) is divinely mandated to cater for the emotional and immediate needs of citizens, and these leaders actually have limited, but enough legal authority required to lead a nation through a crisis, with the caveat of not tampering or compromising with that which may be legally and forensically vital to the imminent investigation.
For example, when the 1927 Mississippi River Flood (1927) struck, the US, President Incumbent at the time, Calvin Coolidge ‘bypassed initial reluctance for federal intervention, and instantly deployed Herbert Hoover to coordinate rescue, shelter, and medical care for hundreds of thousands of displaced and drowned-out citizens along the overflowing river.
Editor, in this situation where President Ali and Minister Edghill are responding legally, morally and ethically in a most appropriate manner, it is a clear manifestation where their hearts are. They are in fact recognizing and acknowledging human suffering, showing that their government values its citizens’ lives far above bureaucracy or infrastructure.’ Thus, there was the mobilisation to provide immediate and necessary comfort, and offer vital emotional support to the traumatized families and survivors.
During the crisis, and amidst valiant rescue operation, all that I was hearing from the opposition was whom to fire, who is responsible, and let me be the hero etc. Ridiculous and shameful indeed!
I recall in a climate and infrastructure crises, the severe northern flooding/water emergencies in Canada, leaders like Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Prime Minister Mark Carney routinely resisted calls from opposition parties or Indigenous leadership to fire sitting natural resource or indigenous services ministers, opting instead for internal administrative reviews when the crisis came to an end.
Readers, just think of the chaos that will ensue should there be any disruption resulting from any immediate firing of any key person. And in fact, a Head of State may decide not to fire any minister after a water vessel traced, or any other one for several strategic, legal, and operational reasons.
For one, the government wants the preservation of Operational Continuity and the maintaining of the crisis response. I think it would be most irresponsible and far too hasty to fire a minister during this active emergency response.
This this will just hemorrhage the chain of command when what is needed is stable leadership Replacing a minister immediately in all likelihood may result in the loss of person best equipped with the background knowledge required to manage this ongoing crisis. I think we all agree that mass leadership changes can cause a ministry staff to stall decision-making out of fear for their own job security.
Editor, it stands to good reason that all Guyana must await the announced independent investigations. Good and mature leadership dictates that no minister should be fired, as this must be contingent upon judicial inquiries, and that alone must determine actual culpability. Too many times it was proved that ministers do set high-level policies, whereas actual tragedies are usually caused by localized operational errors, mechanical failures, or sudden weather. We must at this time avoid premature blaming, as this can prejudice legal proceedings or create a scapegoat before the true systemic failures are understood.
Secondly, the man behind it all, Azruddin Mohamed is not qualified for the calling of heads. His murky illegal past has been subject to heavy scrutiny regarding alleged links to violent incidents and severe international offenses. I am talking about financial crimes, public allegations, and ongoing police investigations connected to a high-profile murder.
Mohamed’s current legal position is most tenuous as this involves a massive 11-count U.S. federal criminal indictment in Florida. The charges focus on wire fraud, mail fraud, customs violations, and laundering money through his family’s gold exporting firm.
I close by reminding readers and especially the protestors that “Under Guyana’s legal framework, specifically the Public Order Act, holding public processions, marches, or utilizing certain noisy instruments at public meetings, generally requires advance notification or written permission from the police or designated authorities to maintain public safety and good order.” The political opposition, as far as I know, did not obtain a formal permit to host the street vigil directly in front of Public Works Minister Juan Edghill’s home, so the cops were quite in order to intervene.
Yours truly,
Hargesh B. Singh