—says participation in assistance process voluntary

Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC on Tuesday night denied that financial offers of compensation had been made to survivors or bereaved families of the MV Barima tragedy, following reports from relatives that proposed payments were being discussed.

Speaking on his weekly Issues in the News Facebook programme, Nandlall said lawyers working with affected persons had informed them in writing that participation was voluntary and that they remained free to obtain independent legal advice.

“At this stage, no financial offer of compensation has been made to any survivor or family,” he said. “Statements that a specific sum has already been offered to any person is wholly untrue.”

His denial follows an account by Mabaruma resident Leon Murray, who told Kiskadee Watch that he had rejected a proposed $5 million payment for the loss of six relatives in the July 18 disaster. Murray said a lawyer had approached him about the payment but he declined, insisting that he wanted justice for his family. Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed subsequently highlighted Murray’s account and criticised the purported offer. 

Kiskadee Watch also reported that relatives of the vessel’s chief engineer, Paul Seepersad, were unwilling to accept what they described as a proposed settlement requiring them to surrender their rights. A relative said discussions with lawyers had raised concerns that signing documents could absolve the government of responsibility and affect their ability to pursue further claims. 

Nandlall described allegations being circulated about compensation as inaccurate and malicious, and accused the Opposition Leader of contributing to their dissemination.

He said the legal team, headed by former Belize Attorney General and Senior Counsel Eamon Courtenay, had met affected persons in Region Four and travelled to Mabaruma and Port Kaituma in Region One, where many of the survivors and relatives live.

According to Nandlall, the lawyers had advised him that each person who met them had received written notification explaining the voluntary nature of the process and the right to seek independent advice.

“They have also been advised that the terms and conditions applicable to any eventual payment will be set out in an agreement,” he said.

Nandlall maintained that the government was remaining at arm’s length from the process. He said President Irfaan Ali had assigned the responsibility to independent lawyers to avoid allegations of undue influence, coercion or duress. 

He attributed to the lawyers a warning that false reports about financial offers could create confusion, anxiety and mistrust among people already dealing with exceptionally difficult circumstances.

The Attorney General also defended the wider HEART initiative, saying it brought together people providing legal assistance, counselling and medical services. He accused critics of maligning professionals who were giving their time to assist affected families.

Nandlall renewed his criticism of lawyers publicly commenting on the matter, alleging that some were soliciting retainers. He maintained that those making public pronouncements had not produced evidence that they had been retained by affected persons.

President Ali announced the HEART initiative in July to coordinate sustained assistance to survivors and bereaved families. The acronym stands for Hope, Empathy, Aid, Resilience and Trust. At its announcement, Ali said the proposed financial assistance should not be interpreted as compensation. The MV Barima sank on July 18 while travelling from Georgetown to Port Kaituma.

The concerns about settlement terms have drawn comparisons with the arrangements following the May 21, 2023 Mahdia Secondary School dormitory fire, which killed 19 girls and the five-year-old son of the dormitory’s house mother.

As Kiskadee Watch reported earlier this month, relatives in the Mahdia litigation have challenged agreements under which families were offered $5 million for each child who died. They contend that they were pressured to sign without independent legal advice and that the amounts were inadequate.

The State disputes those allegations. In its defence, it maintains that families were free to consult a lawyer of their choosing and were not required to sign or accept the payments. The agreements described the payments as settlement of claims arising from the fire, and their validity and the circumstances in which they were signed remain contested.