although Fire Service Office stressed urgency of prevention recommendations

THE Presidential Commission of Inquiry (COI) into the Mahdia Dormitory fire on Thursday was informed that the Regional Education Officer at the time did not review a report containing safety recommendations for the dorms.

This was heard on the eighth day of the public hearings for the Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the deadly Mahdia dorm fire, which occurred in May of this year, and saw the lives of 20 children lost.

Standing before the Commission on Thursday was former Regional Education Officer for Region Eight, Annesta Douglas who told the commission that up until Thursday she had not seen the contents of a report which was submitted to her by Guyana Fire Service Sub-Officer, Ryan Scott following an inspection he conducted at the Mahdia dormitory in February of this year.

Days prior, during his testimony, Sub Officer Scott had told the commission that he had inspected the dorms and made recommendations, which were presented in a report to authorities including the Regional Educational Officer.

When asked about this report by counsel for the commission, Keoma Griffith, she noted that it was the first time she had seen the report. Douglas indicated that while she was in the position at that time, no action was initiated when she received the report.

She said this report was submitted to her on February 7th, 2023 and placed in an “urgent dip” section on her desk as Scott had mentioned that there were urgent recommendations in the report upon delivery.

She told the commission, “I received them and I placed it into my urgent dip… when Mr. Scott brought the report he said to me, sorry to be late and you know, let us see what we can do about the recommendation.”

However, she noted that after placing the report there, she continued to work as she indicated that the department there was understaffed and further indicated that her supervisor, the Regional Executive Officer was not in office.

When asked about the protocol, she noted that this report should have been discussed with the REO upon receipt, however, up to that time, she had not read the said report.

Meanwhile, the following day after receiving the report, she told the commission that she was informed by the principal personnel officer that she was about to be reassigned and, as such, her focus was shifted to that.

“Immediately I was broken and I said again and I began to relive the pain and the hurts of 2021 and that was the evening of the 8th [of February] because this report should have been discussed with the REO upon receipt,” she said.

She then went on to explain “the pain of 2021” that she relived at the time to the commission, “When I was removed and I went to the central ministry they didn’t know where to put me… and I was going back and forth, they didn’t know what to do… and so I endured one year of humiliation, mental stress, torturing, pain hurts and I sat at that desk.”

Upon learning of her impending reassignment, she acknowledged the toll it had taken on her. On February 9th, she received an official letter from the REO, informing her that she had one week to pack up and depart the region.

Added to this, she noted that she had asked whether she could have that time extended so that she could give a proper handing over of the department to the relevant persons, but was then informed that this could not be adjusted.

However, Griffith then asked her what steps she took to ensure that this report received urgent attention from whomever she was expected to hand the office over to.

Griffith put to her: “So at all material times you understood that this report required urgent action and even with that understanding you didn’t even read the report.”

She then indicated that her focus shifted towards her reassignment and handing over as opposed to reading the urgent report and addressing the same with the Regional Executive Officer.

Subsequently, Counsel added, “You understand that the consequences of your focus being shifted from this report, the result has been the death of 20 minors, you understand that?”

In response, Douglas said that she would not accept that and further stated, “For the region, what was urgent was for me to leave that was urgent.”

Douglas was then asked again by COI Commsioner Dr Kim Kyte-Thomas to respond directly concerning what prevented her from bringing attention to the report to which Douglas responded by noting that she was preparing to leave the region and hand over the department as that was deemed urgent.

The commission, however, concluded that Douglas had enough time to look at the report that was presented to her between the time she received the same, to the time that she was informed that she was going to be reassigned.

The report that was submitted by the Sub officer indicated that there was no placement of any fire extinguishers within the dorm of a fire hydrant around the vicinity of the dorm in Mahdia.

It was further noted that the building lacked fire alarms and fire detection systems and made recommendations for the grills that were placed at all windows in the building to be removed. Other observations included the lack of exit signs and smoke detectors.