Magistrate rules that murder case against MV Barima captain, others must go ahead

Last Updated on Monday, 19 October 2026, 17:49 by Writer

The murder case against the captain of the MV Barima ferry, the first mate and Transport and Harbours Department (T&HD) goods superintendent must go ahead because there would be no abuse of process for the lower court to proceed with the matter.

“I say, therefore, and this is my ruling, that it is not an abuse process to have these proceedings conducted in this court,” Magistrate Ravindra Mohabir told the court. 

“So, in the circumstances and based on the ruling, I will move forward, and we are going to return on the 16th of November, 2026, for the commencement of the paper committal. That is the ruling of the court,” he said.

The court would on December 14 at 10 a.m. decide whether there is sufficient evidence for captain, Kevin Price called “KP”, 40, of Melanie Damishana, East Coast Demerara; the chief mate, Rondell Dwayne Roberts, 42, of Grove Public Road, East Bank Demerara, and the goods superintendent, Delon Granderson, 33, of Fellowship, West Coast Demerara to face trial by a High Court judge and jury.

The MV Barima sank on July 18 about nine or 10 nautical miles off the Essequibo Coast.

The trio is charged jointly with the murder of 76 persons. 

The accused men’s lawyers had argued that the Shipping Act provides for its own investigation.

They had contended that there would be abuse because of the parallel Commission of Inquiry that is being held.

Representing Mr Price and Mr Granderson is Dr Dexter Todd.

Mr Everton Singh-Lammy is representing Mr Roberts.

The defence team had contended that the Shipping Act provides for a specific statutory mechanism for investigating such matters and there should have been establishment of a court to conduct the inquiry.

They said that in light of the presidential COI, those proceedings should not have been brought before a magistrate.

The prosecution countered that nothing in the Shipping Act prevents the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from instituting a charge of murder and to have a paper committal done.

The prosecution argued that the DPP derives her powers from Guyana’s Constitution and one of those is to institute or bring criminal charges against someone.

Also, the prosecution stated that the magistrate’s court is a creature of statute and is bound by the Paper Committal Act under which those proceedings are brought and the court is bound to follow what that Act provides.

Magistrate Mohabir, in the lead up to his decision, said the court was concerned with whether the prosecution presents sufficient evidence to commit the accused persons to stand trial for the offence of murder or whether there was a lack of evidence to discharge them.