MV Barima inquiry seeks truth; no one will be shielded – CoI Attorneys

Counsels to the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the capsizing and sinking of the MV Barima off Guyana’s coast back in July, Attorneys-at-Law Teni Housty and Arudhanath Gossai have reassured that their role is to assist the commission in ascertaining the truth as they examine the circumstances that led to the tragedy and prevent a reoccurrence.

This commitment came from the lawyers as the five-member commission commenced public hearings on Wednesday at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre (ACCC), Greater Georgetown.

Justice Godfrey Phillip Smith is chairing the inquiry alongside Commissioners Captain Hamada Fouda, Attorney Nyree Dawn Alfonso, Dr Andrzej Jasionowski, and Rear Admiral (Retired) Hayden Pritchard.

They are supported by Attorneys Housty and Gossai, who will be responsible for identifying issues requiring examination, assisting with the orderly management of procedure, leading evidence, examining witnesses and providing legal and procedural assistance that the Commission may require within the scope of its Terms of Reference.

During the public hearings, the Counsels to the Commission will seek to present evidence in six principal areas based on the ToRs. These include the MV Barima’s seaworthiness; passenger and cargo operations; crew qualifications and conduct; search, rescue and recovery operations; regulatory and institutional oversight of the vessel; and human factors surrounding the tragedy.
These six matters would be examined individually and collectively to determine whether any acts, omissions or systemic shortcomings contributed to the disaster.

In brief remarks at the start of Wednesday’s proceedings, Housty made it clear that they are approaching this responsibility objectively and without preconceived conclusions.

“Our duty is to ensure that all material evidence, whether favourable or unfavourable to any particular person or institution, is fairly placed before the Commission. Our obligation is not to establish blame but to assist in establishing the truth,” the CoI Counsel stated.
According to Housty, “It is important to emphasise that Counsels to the Commission do not represent any particular party or interest. Our role is neither to prosecute nor to defend any individual institution or organisation. Our responsibility is to assist the commissioners…”

While acknowledging that it cannot restore the lives lost or erase the pain endured by their families, Housty noted, however, that this inquiry is an important opportunity to establish the truth, provide answers and identify measures to prevent a reoccurrence of the disaster.
“The fundamental questions are straightforward, although the answers may be complex. What happened? Why did it happen? Could it have been prevented? Were there failures of individuals, institutions or systems? And what must be done to ensure that such a tragedy does not occur again?”

“In answering these questions, the commission must examine not only the immediate circumstances of the sinking but also the events, decisions and systems which preceded it, as well as the response which followed,” Housty stated.

Similarly, Attorney Gossai committed to a fair, thorough and respectful examination of the witnesses, adding that any difference would be given careful and extensive consideration. He further noted that no witnesses’ account will be accepted or rejected without proper consideration.

“No person or institution would be shielded from proper scrutiny, and equally, no person or institution would be condemned without sufficient evidence,” Gossai assured.

The CoI Counsel went on to remind that while the Commission has significant investigative powers, it is not a criminal court and does not exercise civil jurisdiction. He added that the purpose of the inquiry is to establish facts, identify causes and contributing factors, and make findings and recommendations within the mandate set out.

“Nevertheless, the findings may have serious consequences for individuals and institutions. It is therefore essential that the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness govern these proceedings,” the attorney posited.

Gossai noted that any person or institution facing possible adverse criticism must be afforded a fair opportunity to respond in accordance with the Commission’s rules of procedure as well as the Commission of Inquiry Act and the Constitution of Guyana.

“We will assist the Commission in ensuring the proceedings are orderly, the relevant persons are heard, the process is transparent in its methods and respectful of the rights and interests of those affected by the work of the Commission. The independence and credibility of this inquiry must rest upon the evidence presented, the fairness of the procedure and the soundness of the conclusions that you will ultimately make,” Gossai said.

Meanwhile, as a substantive hearing began on Wednesday, former Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary (Ret’d) Justice Carl Singh made an application to represent Public Works Minister Juan Edghill during the inquiry, citing “substantial interest” in the proceeding.
Edghill and his colleague, Public Utilities and Aviation Minister Deodat Indar, have faced widespread criticisms and calls for their resignation over the July 18 capsizing and sinking of the MV Barima, which saw 76 persons surviving, 73 bodies recovered, and at least 30 others still missing.

According to Justice Singh, “The Minister and one of his colleagues, they together have been subject of trenchant criticisms following the sinking of the vessel – Barima, and some rather indecorous calls relating to their wellbeing and their continued service in the Government of Guyana.”

The CoI Chairman indicated that the application would be considered, asking Singh to make a written submission as a matter of record.
At the commencement of Wednesday’s public hearings, the Secretariat blocked the livestreaming of the proceedings, but the media was allowed to record the proceedings. The entire proceedings were also being recorded by the commission.