THE families and survivors of the MV Barima tragedy came to meet the Commission of Inquiry last Wednesday at the Arthur Chung Convention Centre. They had questions and a right to be heard. Uninvited, Azruddin Mohamed and his sister, Hana Khamelia, came with four MPs to stage a political performance.
I was there.
From the back of the packed room, Hana urged people to get up and “just leave.” No one moved. She then moved to a position against the wall, midway between the commissioners and their guests, and continued to pollute the room.
When the chairman announced “one last question,” Azruddin sprang into action, grabbing the microphone from someone’s hand and proceeding to deliver a political tirade, berating President Dr Mohamed Irfaan Ali, the Government of Guyana and the five commissioners.
Azruddin is free to oppose the president, his government and challenge its decisions. But calling him “a dictator” is reckless behaviour. A word that describes the brutal suppression of political freedom should not be reduced to an insult for a president you oppose.
I have had the misfortune of encountering real dictators and warlords, and I thank God that Guyana has a president who is a scholar and a gentleman. But the insult was not the most objectionable part of Azruddin’s performance.
Nearly 120 survivors and bereaved relatives had gathered to meet the people charged with investigating the Barima tragedy. They came seeking answers about a catastrophe that had upended their lives. Azruddin held them captive for his performance.
I could only conclude that Azruddin had come armed with a plan: to attack the integrity of the commissioners and attempt to poison the relationship on which their work depends. Allow me to remind readers who he was insulting.
Chairman Justice Godfrey Phillip Smith is a former Attorney General of Belize and former judge of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal. Nyree Dawn Alfonso brings more than three decades of legal experience, including admiralty and maritime law. Dr Andrzej Jasionowski is a forensic naval architect whose doctorate concerns the behaviour of damaged vessels.
Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Hayden Pritchard is a former Chief of Defence Staff of the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force with extensive experience in maritime operations and security. Captain Hamada Fouda brings more than 35 years of maritime experience, including vessel inspections and casualty investigations.
A Commission of Inquiry is not a criminal court. While that much is true, it would be wrong to consider it toothless. Jason Beer KC, co-author of the authoritative textbook Public Inquiries, offers a useful framework. I recommend Azruddin obtain a copy and make it essential reading, assuming he is able to read something other than a social media post.
Public inquiries address three central questions: what happened; why it happened and who is responsible; and what can be done to prevent it happening again. That is the distinction the public needs to grasp. An inquiry looks backwards to establish the facts and forwards to identify what must change.
In the case of the sinking of the Barima, commissioners must examine seaworthiness and stability, maintenance and statutory approvals, passenger numbers and manifests, cargo loading, life-saving equipment, crew qualifications and decision-making, search and rescue, and the oversight exercised by the Transport and Harbours Department and MARAD. Those are not peripheral questions. They are the architecture of accountability.
The commission has statutory powers to summon witnesses and compel evidence, but it has to do so without disregarding the rights of people facing criminal proceedings, such as the captain and two crew members. Justice Smith said the commission wants to hear from them, but cautioned that their participation is legally sensitive and must be handled within the law, with due regard for their rights and legal advice.
There is nothing uniquely Guyanese about using an independent inquiry to examine a catastrophe. The United Kingdom and Australia have established systems of public inquiries, including the UK’s current COVID-19 Inquiry. Such bodies collect documents, hear witnesses, examine institutional failures and make findings within their terms of reference. Their purpose is not to stage a criminal trial, but to answer questions that criminal proceedings alone may leave unresolved.
Azruddin is entitled to scrutinise the proceedings and challenge the eventual report. But to condemn the commissioners before they have completed their work – and warn that their findings will be rejected unless they satisfy him – is to demand the very thing he claims to oppose: a predetermined outcome.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.