Dear Commissioners,
Permit me first to congratulate you on your appointment and to thank you for accepting this important public responsibility.
You were sworn in on 30 July 2026 to inquire into one of the gravest peacetime tragedies in Guyana’s history. Nearly four weeks later, the families of those who died or remain missing, the survivors and the public have heard virtually nothing from the Commission itself about when or how it proposes to begin its work.
That silence is becoming a matter of concern.
I readily accept that a serious Commission requires time to organise itself, obtain advice, settle its procedures and prepare for hearings. But necessary preparation does not require public silence. You begin your work in difficult circumstances. Questions were raised at the outset about the process of appointment, the absence of consultation, the composition of the Commission and its Terms of Reference. Recent experience with another Commission appointed following a national tragedy has also contributed to public cynicism about whether Commissions of Inquiry provide the accountability their appointment appears to promise.
Your silence risks feeding that cynicism. More importantly, it adds to the uncertainty, pain and frustration of families and survivors who are entitled to look to you for answers. In the present vacuum, grieving families and survivors may be approached individually concerning financial assistance, compensation or settlement before they have had an organised opportunity to understand and protect their rights. Immediate assistance is welcome and may be desperately needed. But assistance is not compensation, and financial need should not become the occasion for obtaining premature settlements or the surrender of legal rights. Any attempt to do so should be discouraged.
I therefore respectfully call upon the Commission, without further delay, to address the families, survivors and the public; explain the delay since 30 July; publish a timetable for the commencement of its work and first public sitting; and state when its Rules of Procedure will be published and how affected persons may seek recognition, representation and participation in the Inquiry.
None of this requires the Commission to prejudge evidence or disclose confidential deliberations. It requires only that an independent public Commission account for how it proposes to discharge the public trust it has accepted.
Some matters requiring early attention
Before evidence begins, the Commission should publish Rules of Procedure dealing with public hearings, representation, disclosure, examination of witnesses, participation by families and survivors, the treatment of persons facing criminal charges and the procedure where adverse findings may be contemplated. Openness should be the rule; private hearings the exception.
Officers in charge of the vessel on that fateful night have been charged with murder. The pending criminal proceedings require careful handling. The accused retain the presumption of innocence, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to a fair trial. At the same time, the Commission must be able to hear evidence from others which may bear upon their conduct. The fairness principles commonly associated with Lord Salmon — notice of allegations, disclosure of the substance of the case and a proper opportunity to respond — should inform the Commission’s procedures.
Nor should the criminal charges against members of the crew narrow the Inquiry. The public is entitled to know not merely what happened on 18 July, but how it came to happen. That requires examination of the Barima’s maintenance, inspection and certification; passenger and cargo controls; the manifest and the extraordinary discrepancy between the recorded and apparent number of persons aboard; and the responsibilities of the Transport and Harbours Department and other public authorities.
It must also examine the wider management of the ferry service. Other vessels had been acquired but had not been commissioned. Why not? Were they intended to replace or supplement the Barima? What decisions, delays or failures kept them out of service, and did that contribute to the continued use of the Barima? Were warnings ignored, known deficiencies tolerated or opportunities to prevent the tragedy missed?
The Inquiry must also examine what happened afterwards: rescue, recovery, identification and family liaison; the decisions concerning the raising of the vessel; and preservation of the evidence it may contain. Its proper field is what happened before, during and after the disaster.
No relevant person should be beyond its reach. Ministers, senior public servants, regulators, inspectors, engineers, passengers and others who possess relevant evidence should be called where necessary.
No office should confer immunity from legitimate inquiry.
The families and survivors
The families and survivors cannot be spectators at an inquiry into their own tragedy.
There are confirmed deaths, missing persons and survivors. There may have been passengers who never appeared on the manifest, and further remains may be discovered when the vessel is eventually raised. The Commission should provide a means by which those affected can participate and, where appropriate, be represented collectively on matters of common concern while preserving their individual legal rights.
Past experience gives particular reason for concern. Following previous public tragedies, Government and persons acting on its behalf have moved directly to affected families with offers of cash settlements, accompanied in some cases by agreements containing confidentiality or non-disclosure provisions. We should not pretend that the possibility of a similar approach does not exist here.
The Commission’s silence creates the very conditions in which that can happen. Families grieving, some still awaiting the recovery of loved ones, and many facing immediate financial pressures may be approached individually before they have received independent advice, organised themselves collectively or even heard from the Commission established to inquire into their loss. Once individual settlements begin, families can be divided, rights surrendered and the collective search for answers and accountability weakened. That, I submit, will be harmful to all concerned.
That is not a theoretical concern. It is another reason why the Commission must become publicly engaged now. Its proceedings cannot protect families from every pressure, nor is that its function. But an active, accessible and transparent Commission gives victims and families a forum, a voice and a process. An invisible Commission leaves a vacuum which others are free to fill.
Make the Commission your own
I make these observations with some experience of such proceedings, having appeared as counsel before the Commissions of Inquiry into the death of Dr. Walter Rodney and the Georgetown Prison fire. They taught me that the authority of a Commission ultimately depends less upon the Instrument appointing it than upon the independence, fairness and transparency with which it conducts its work.
Your Commission was appointed by the Executive. It must not be defined by the Executive. Publish your procedures. Set your timetable. Communicate with the families. Hold your hearings openly. Call every relevant witness regardless of office. Follow the evidence wherever it leads.
You have accepted a Commission of Inquiry. This historic duty is now yours to discharge. The first step is a simple one: emerge from the silence and tell the families, the survivors and the country what you are doing and how soon you will begin work.
I remain respectfully,
Christopher Ram
Attorney-at-Law
Chartered Accountant
August 27, 2026