MV Barima sinking warrants manslaughter charges

Dear Editor,

The tragic loss of life aboard the MV Barima^[1] was not an unavoidable accident; it was the direct and foreseeable result of a systemic failure of duty by those entrusted with the vessel’s safety. I write to outline the legal basis for prosecuting the “Responsible Parties” for manslaughter and related offences.

Collectively, the “Responsible Parties” in this case may be defined as the lead and singular Supervising Minister accountable for the Transport & Harbours Department (THD) by way of the Gazette Responsibilities of Cabinet Ministers^[2], the Board of Directors of the THD, the General Manager of THD, the Technical Managers responsible for releasing the vessel from port, and the Captain who agreed to sail despite known defects existing on the passenger vessel before its departure, and with full knowledge that human beings were on board.

There is a case for the prosecution of all of them individually and collectively. The legal framework for this prosecution is grounded in the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, Cap 8:01^[3], which provides the statutory basis for homicide offences, including manslaughter, within the jurisdiction. This framework can be reasoned as a persuasive model to establish individual and collective liability on the “Responsible Parties”, demonstrating how they individually and collectively grossly breached their duty of care to the travelling public.

The “Responsible Parties” can be individually and collectively charged with gross negligence manslaughter. The elements of this offence are clearly met in this case.

The “Responsible Parties” owed a clear and non-delegable duty of care to the passengers, subordinate crew of the MV Barima^[1], and the animals on board (yes there were pets on board). This duty encompasses the obligation to ensure the vessel was seaworthy, properly equipped, and safe for travel. The “Responsible Parties” are directly responsible for the oversight and implementation of health and safety policies for the vessels under their control.

The failure to register the vessel’s Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) constitutes a gross breach of this duty. An EPIRB is a safety-critical piece of equipment; its sole purpose is to summon immediate rescue in an emergency. Operating a passenger ferry without a registered EPIRB is a fundamental and indefensible failure that renders the vessel unfit for sea travel.

There is a direct causal link between the breach and the resulting deaths. The failure to register the EPIRB directly caused or significantly contributed to delayed Search and Rescue (SAR) operations. This delay prevented authorities from identifying the vessel, its location, its size, and its passenger manifest in a timely manner, directly resulting in the loss of life that might otherwise have been prevented.

The conduct of the “Responsible Parties” amounts to gross negligence. They were aware of, or ought to have been aware of, their statutory obligations. Their failure to act was not a mere oversight but a reckless disregard for human life. Putting a passenger vessel to sea in this condition, with knowledge of the potential consequences, elevates the negligence from a civil wrong to a criminal act.

The liability is not confined to a single actor but extends across the chain of command and oversight.

The “Responsible Parties” are liable individually and collectively due to their failure to establish, implement, and enforce adequate safety management systems. Their individual and collective failure to ensure a basic, legally required safety measure was in place, constitutes a gross breach of their managerial duty of care.

The consequences for the “Responsible Parties” extend beyond criminal prosecution.

Maritime law generally allows the “Responsible Parties” to limit their financial liability. However, this right is forfeited entirely if the loss resulted from an act or omission done “recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result.” The failure to register a life-saving device is a textbook example of such reckless disregard for human life. Consequently, the “Responsible Parties” lose all rights, individually and collectively, to cap financial claims.

As a result of losing the right to limit liability, the “Responsible Parties” individually and collectively can face uncapped civil claims. The families of the deceased passengers can sue for full compensatory damages, and potentially punitive damages, holding the “Responsible Parties” collectively and individually liable and the owners of the THD (the State), for the full extent of the harm caused.

In conclusion, the evidence points to a clear and compelling case for prosecution. The “Responsible Parties” failed in their most fundamental duty: to protect the lives of those on board the MV Barima^[1]. Their gross negligence, culminating in the failure to register the vessel’s emergency beacon, directly caused the deaths of passengers by fatally delaying their rescue.

They should be individually and collectively charged with gross negligence manslaughter under the Criminal Law (Offences) Act, Cap 8:01^[3]. And if the Director of Public Prosecutions chooses to play politics with this situation, then the families must immediately start preparing to file private criminal charges against each and every one of these members of the “Responsible Parties” and the Government of Guyana for gross negligence resulting in reckless loss of life, thereby stripping them of any right to limit their financial liability and exposing them to massive, uncapped civil claims from the victims’ families. The need for this prosecution is not only legally sound but a moral imperative to ensure full accountability and deter similar future tragedies.

References

1. MV Barima survivors allege crew drinking, engine failures ahead of sinking - News Room Guyana — newsroom.gy ↩
2. The Official Gazette of Guyana — officialgazette.gov.gy ↩
3. CHAPTER 8:01 CRIMINAL LAW (OFFENCES) ACT — hrlibrary.umn.edu ↩