By Antonio Dey | HGP Nightly News |
ARTHUR CHUNG CONFERENCE CENTRE, LILIENDAAL — The Presidential Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the sinking of the state ferry MV Barima has not yet made a determination on whether it will formally summon the three senior crew members currently indicted on 72 counts of murder to give sworn evidence before the public hearings, Chairman and retired Belizean Supreme Court Justice Godfrey Smith, SC, confirmed on Tuesday.
The issue of the accused men’s potential testimony was brought directly before the commissioners by Attorney-at-Law Suzanne Bullen of the law firm Stanbrook Prudhoe. Bullen appeared on behalf of the defense legal consortium working alongside King’s Counsel Tim Prudhoe and Dr. Dexter Todd, the legal team representing the vessel’s goods superintendent, Delon Granderson.
Granderson, together with vessel master Captain Kevin Price and First Mate Rondell Roberts, stands jointly charged with 72 counts of murder arising from the July 18, 2026 maritime disaster that claimed over 70 lives when the overloaded vessel foundered in rough seas off the Essequibo coast.
Defense Inquiries: Transcripts, Evidence Overlap, and Self-Incrimination
Appearing before the commission, Bullen informed the bench that Granderson’s legal team had dispatched formal correspondence on Monday seeking definitive clarification on three procedural and constitutional issues:
- Daily Transcripts: Whether defense attorneys representing the charged men can be furnished with daily, unedited certified transcripts of all witness testimonies presented during public hearings.
- Summons and Subpoenas: Whether the commission intends to exercise its statutory powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act to formally summon Granderson, Price, and Roberts to the witness stand.
- Evidentiary Cross-Contamination: How the commission intends to handle the significant overlap between testimony tendered at the public inquiry and the parallel criminal proceedings, specifically whether disclosures before the CoI could prejudice or be admitted into the indictable murder preliminary inquiry.
“I noticed in the rules of the commission… we would like to know if there is the possibility for daily transcripts… given the overlap of evidence in both proceedings,” Bullen submitted before the bench.
Useful Testimony vs. Formal Summons: Justice Smith Responds
Addressing the defense team’s inquiries, Retired Justice Godfrey Smith clarified the commission’s current position regarding the three indicted crew members:
- Substantive Value: Justice Smith acknowledged that the trio possessed direct, intimate operational knowledge of the vessel’s cargo stowage, boarding protocols, mechanical condition, and final emergency maneuvers, making their perspectives potentially valuable to the inquiry’s mandate.
- No Decision on Coercive Process: The Chairman stressed that while their testimony would be welcomed, the commissioners have deliberately held off on issuing formal subpoenas.
- Voluntary Willingness and State of Mind: Justice Smith probed whether Granderson or the other accused were in a suitable legal frame of mind to waive their constitutional protections against self-incrimination and appear voluntarily before the public commission.
“I had said we would wish to hear; we think that Mr. Granderson and the other two men could give useful testimony to the commission. We have not decided on summoning them,” Justice Smith stated.
When asked directly whether Granderson wished to volunteer evidence publicly, Bullen stated:
“Commissioner, at this moment I don’t have instructions in that regard, but I am happy to enquire and follow up.”
Admissibility of Evidence in Parallel Criminal Trials
Regarding Bullen’s concerns over whether disclosures made before the inquiry could be introduced by state prosecutors in the criminal trial, Justice Smith made a clear jurisdictional demarcation:
- Separation of Powers: The Chairman noted that the Presidential Commission of Inquiry is a fact-finding administrative tribunal tasked with systemic and operational review, not a court of criminal judicature.
- Discretion of Criminal Judges: Justice Smith emphasized that any decision regarding the admissibility of CoI evidence, hearsay rules, or protections against self-incrimination in the murder trials lies exclusively within the jurisdictional authority of the Magistrate’s Court and the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
“Whether or not there would be any restrictions on the evidence and admissibility… [that is a matter]… for the criminal courts,” the Chairman affirmed.
Scope of the Inquiry: Over 20 Witnesses Heard
The ongoing inquiry has now received evidence from more than 20 witnesses, including maritime regulators, first responders, technical staff, and surviving passengers. Under Justice Godfrey Smith’s leadership, the five-member commission continues to examine:
- Vessel Seaworthiness and Loading: Statutory compliance regarding cargo distribution, center of gravity, and the 54 unrecorded passengers revealed by port security cameras.
- Crew Competence and Oversight: Operational decision-making by Captain Price, First Mate Roberts, and Goods Superintendent Granderson prior to cast-off.
- Search and Rescue Deficiencies: Communication gaps, unregistered emergency beacons, and the absence of standardized operational procedures within MARAD and the Georgetown Lighthouse.
Hearings continue at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre as the commission works toward establishing systemic accountability, identifying regulatory negligence, and recommending structural overhauls for Guyana’s maritime sector.
