GEORGETOWN, Guyana, Feb 17, CMC – The Guyana Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) has describing as “misleading” and “alarming misinformation” that President Irfaan Ali was involved in a “tragic airplane crash” over the last weekend.
In a statement, the GCAA said that it wanted to assure the public that this report, posted on social media “ is entirely false” and that “no aircraft accident was reported in Guyana’s territory on February 13 or 1”
The GCAA said also that there is no ongoing investigation into any incident involving President Ali.
Minister of Public Works, Bishop Juan Edghill, who oversees the aviation sector and the investigation of aircraft incidents under the Civil Aviation Act, said, “he is disturbed by this erroneous publication.
“Such fake news are unsubstantiated claims and calculated attempts to sow fear, confusion, and distrust within our beloved nation,” he said, adding that “President Ali is safe and well.
“We pray for his continued health and strength as he continues to lead Guyana with outstanding dedication and excellence.”
The GCAA said it is calling on the public and the media “to verify information through credible channels.
“ We urge everyone to exercise caution in sharing unverified content that can harm our society’s trust and well-being. The GCAA remains committed to ensuring the safety of our skies and the integrity of information shared with the public. Let us stand together against misinformation and support a culture of truth,” it added.
Meanwhile, the Maritime Administration Department (MARAD) is also dismissing “the glaring untruths and misconceptions” posted on social media over the last weekend in which it said it was “falsely alleged corrupt practices on the part of the Senior Minister of Public Works, and/or the management of the MARAD”.
It described the report as “grossly misleading and downright mischievous” with the Ministry of Public Works “categorically” stating that the grant of cabotage exemptions is provided for by Section 10 of the Guyana Shipping Act, and is not a clandestine process as is erroneously suggested.
“While in Guyana, cabotage is exclusive to Guyana Flagged vessels, exemptions are allowed and are based on a thorough assessment of the circumstances or justifiable reasons presented by the applicant. Additionally, these exemptions are issued with the strictest terms and conditions attached, in the interest of maritime safety, safety to the marine environment, and maritime security.”
MARAD said all vessels to which these exemptions apply are subject to rigid port state inspections, which include inspection of the hull and machinery, and statutory documents to ensure compliance with established local and international regulations.
“Therefore, the grant of cabotage exemptions is not a whimsical undertaking as cabotage is a measure of protection for the local shipping industry. However, consideration is often given to the unavailability of local Flagged vessels and the legitimacy of the operations for which cabotage is requested.”
It said that upon applying for the grant of cabotage exemptions, foreign registered vessels are required to pay an administrative fee that is fully accounted for by the MARAD.
“From 2022 to late 2024 there was an exponential increase in the demand for vessels (particularly tugs and barges) to transport sand and aggregates in Guyana. This was driven by a myriad of construction projects underway, including the Gas-to-Energy (GTE) project.
“Local vessel owners did not possess the capacity to meet this demand. Thus, at the request of companies, several foreign registered vessels were approved to operate domestically during this period.”
MARAD said that also, during this time, many Guyanese companies invested and purchased several tugs and barges, and they are registered in Guyana: thereby increasing local capacity and causing lesser reliance on the use of foreign vessels.
“Further, cabotage exemptions issued to foreign Flagged vessels are of a temporary duration, usually for a single voyage or for short periods, but not exceeding one year. It is also poignant to note that the exemption to which the article mischievously alluded has expired.”
CMC/gt/ir/2025