(Kaieteur News) – As the nation continues to mourn the catastrophic July 18, 2026 capsizing of the MV Barima, a comprehensive legal paper authored by maritime scholar Robert C. Millington titled MV Barima and the Maritime Statute Book of Guyana: A Fully Expanded Analysis of Statutory Deficiency in the Law Governing Domestic Passenger Shipping reveals that the disaster was not merely an act of sea, but the predictable result of structural failures embedded in Guyana’s maritime laws. His core finding establishes that the country’s statutory framework left domestic passenger vessels like the MV Barima functionally unregulated regarding modern stability requirements, headcount mandates, and safety management standards. Millington brings domain expertise to his statutory critique, drawing on 39 years of experience across the military, maritime, and logistics sectors.

At the center of Millington’s statutory critique is what he terms “The 24-Metre Gap,” a dangerous regulatory loophole created by conflicting statutory instruments. Under the Guyana Shipping (Small Commercial Ship Safety) Regulations (Reg. 5/2005), safety standards including stability criteria, passenger recording, muster and drill requirements, and safety management systems, apply strictly to vessels under 24 metres in length. Meanwhile, under the Guyana Shipping (Cargo Ship Survey) Regulations (Reg. 6/2005), passenger ships are explicitly excluded. Because the MV Barima measured roughly 40.26 metres in length, it fell directly between both regulations. Consequently, the state-operated passenger vessel carried fewer statutory safety obligations under Guyanese regulations than either a small wooden vessel or a standard cargo ship.

The paper also highlights an institutional conflict of interest within the Guyana Shipping Act (Cap. 49:01). Under Section 3(3) of the Act, for government-owned registered vessels, any statutory reference to the vessel’s owner is legally construed as a reference to the Director of the Maritime Administration Department (MARAD). This statutory deeming creates a direct conflation of roles, as the state entity tasked with enforcing maritime safety rules, receiving defect reports, and issuing detention orders is legally defined as the very shipowner it is meant to regulate.