By Alethea Grant | HGP Nightly News|
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — Prominent attorney-at-law Nigel Hughes has raised serious concerns regarding the timing and nature of murder charges filed against three senior crew members of the ill-fated M.V. Barima. Hughes warned that the capital indictments risk effectively silencing key witnesses before the newly appointed Commission of Inquiry (COI) and shielding critical facts about the ferry’s final voyage from the public.
Describing the prosecution as a “most perverse attempt at distraction,” Hughes questioned whether state investigators possess any evidence of the specific legal intent required to sustain murder charges against shipboard personnel.
Failure to Meet the Legal Standard for Murder
Hughes emphasized that murder under Guyanese criminal law requires strict proof of intent (mens rea)—specifically that the accused intended to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm.
[ LEGAL CONTRADICTION & COI IMPACT ]
│
┌─────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
[ Murder Intent Standard ] [ Risk of Witness Silence ]
- Requires proof of intent to kill or cause harm - Ranks hold constitutional right against self-incrimination
- State must prove intent existed at departure or during trip - Key witnesses likely advised not to testify at COI
- Described by Hughes as a "perverse attempt at distraction" - Prevents public from learning truth of final voyage
Applied to the M.V. Barima disaster, Hughes noted that the prosecution would have to establish that Captain Kevin Price (“KP”), Chief Mate Rondell Dwayne Roberts, and Goods Superintendent Delon Granderson entered the voyage with the intention of causing death or severe harm—a theory the prosecution has yet to detail publicly.
“Murder requires proof of an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm,” Hughes stated. “Applied to this case, the state would have to prove that these men possessed that intention when the vessel set sail or formed it during the voyage. This appears to be a most perverse attempt at distraction.”
Risk to Commission of Inquiry Integrity
Beyond the high evidentiary threshold for murder, Hughes warned that bringing capital charges ahead of the COI threatens the entire fact-finding mandate of the presidential commission led by Justice Godfrey Smith.
As defendants facing murder trials, the three crew members hold a constitutional right against self-incrimination. Consequently, legal counsel will almost certainly advise them to decline answering questions before the COI to protect their criminal defense.
- Essential Eyewitness Knowledge: Price, Roberts, and Granderson possess direct knowledge regarding actual passenger counts, physical cargo loading, engine performance, and critical decisions made prior to capsizing.
- Deprivation of Public Scrutiny: Invoking their right to remain silent will prevent the commission—and the Guyanese public—from obtaining a first-hand account of the operational failures that caused the catastrophe.
- Legal Protections: Whether the COI can compel testimony or grant immunity will depend strictly on the panel’s statutory powers and legal safeguards under the Commissions of Enquiry Act.
Hughes cautioned that attempting to rush criminal prosecutions before independent technical reviews are completed risks compounding one of Guyana’s greatest maritime tragedies with a secondary legal injustice.
