Outreaches predated the MV Barima tragedy

Dear Editor,

Hana K Mohamed’s letter, “You cannot ‘outreach’ your way out of a national tragedy,” is built around a politically convenient proposition: that the government suddenly dispatched ministers across Guyana and revived presidential outreaches to distract attention from the MV Barima tragedy^[1].

There is one rather serious problem with that argument — the chronology does not support it.

Since returning to office following the 2025 elections, the government has conducted at least 10 major Cabinet, presidential and vice-presidential outreach exercises across the country. Several occurred months before the MV Barima tragedy^[1]. Ministers have travelled into communities, met residents, received complaints and attempted to resolve problems directly.

Whatever criticism one wishes to make of the government, pretending that this system of outreach was suddenly invented as political damage control is simply false.

Facts are stubborn things.

Indeed, if the government had stopped conducting outreaches after the tragedy, I suspect Ms Mohamed and her political associates would have accused it of abandoning the people.

When the government continues its established programme of taking ministers into communities, she calls it a “damage-control campaign.” This is not analysis. It is a conclusion desperately searching for supporting facts.

Ms Mohamed then demands ministerial resignations before the Commission of Inquiry^[2] has completed its work. This reveals an equally troubling approach to accountability: decide who is guilty first and investigate afterwards.

That may be convenient politics, but it is not responsible government.

More than 100 people have lost their lives. Precisely because the tragedy is so grave, Guyana needs facts, not political theatre.

We need to know what happened, why it happened, whether regulations were breached, whether there were failures of inspection or enforcement, whether individuals were negligent, whether our emergency-response systems were adequate, and what must be changed to prevent another catastrophe.

That is why there is a Commission of Inquiry.

Ms. Mohamed dismisses the process while simultaneously demanding “answers.” How exactly are credible answers to be obtained without examining evidence, hearing witnesses and determining responsibility?

Should ministers be dismissed because a political opponent demands it in a newspaper letter? Should guilt now be determined by who can generate the loudest protest?

A tragedy of this magnitude deserves something better.

The same political opportunism was evident in Linden. The opposition apparently expected the vice president’s outreach to become the backdrop for its own political demonstration. When that effort failed to produce the confrontation it wanted, we were treated to another dramatic narrative about the vice president supposedly “sneaking out.”

But the purpose of a government outreach is not to provide opposition parties with a stage. It is to allow citizens to bring their problems directly to officials who have the authority to address them. While political activists were looking for confrontation and cameras, ordinary Guyanese were looking for solutions to problems involving housing, roads, drainage, employment and public services.

There is an important difference between the two.

Ms Mohamed is also remarkably certain that the tragedy has already established the culpability of Ministers Juan Edghill and Deodat Indar^[3]. She apparently possesses conclusions before the commission possesses findings. The rest of the country should perhaps be permitted the old-fashioned luxury of evidence.

The allegation that the state simply abandoned the rescue effort is similarly premature. The government mobilised domestic resources and sought regional assistance. Fishermen and ordinary Guyanese who courageously assisted deserve the nation’s gratitude.

Their heroism, however, should not be appropriated as campaign material for any politician. Let the commission determine what worked, what failed, whether Guyana’s search-and-rescue capacity was adequate and where responsibility properly belongs.

Accountability is not the same thing as accusation.

And this brings us to the larger problem with Ms Mohamed’s letter. WIN and some of its advocates appear to believe that government consists principally of outrage, accusation and public spectacle. It does not.

Governing requires institutions, systems, budgets, competent administration, continuity and the ability to make difficult decisions based on evidence rather than emotion. Money can finance a political campaign. It cannot purchase experience, institutional knowledge or competence in government.

The MV Barima tragedy must be thoroughly investigated. Families deserve answers. Where negligence or wrongdoing is established, those responsible must be held accountable. If the evidence ultimately establishes ministerial responsibility, then the political consequences should follow.

But responsible people allow evidence to determine the conclusion. They do not determine the conclusion and then attack the investigation for failing to arrive there quickly enough.

And no amount of political rhetoric can alter the most inconvenient fact confronting Ms Mohamed’s argument. The government was conducting outreaches before the tragedy, it conducted them across multiple regions, and it continues to conduct them now.

That is not distraction. That is called governing.

References

1. High‑level legal and maritime experts named to MV Barima Commission of Inquiry – Office of the President, Guyana — op.gov.gy ↩
2. MV Barima ferry commisssion of inquiry visited scene, collecting documents – Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana — demerarawaves.com ↩
3. Protest erupts in Parliament as opposition demands Edghill, Indar resign over MV Barima tragedy - Kaieteur News — kaieteurnewsonline.com ↩