Negligence & the cost of disrupting essential services

The power outage that disrupted communities in Eccles and Ruimveldt on Monday afternoon was a failure quickly resolved by the Guyana Power and Light Inc, but also it was a reminder of a persistent and costly problem: the careless damage of public infrastructure by contractors who operate without adequate safeguards, accountability, or respect for the consequences of their actions.
Electricity is an essential service that underpins daily life, commerce, health care, education, and public safety. When power is interrupted, even for a relatively short period, the ripple effects are immediate and tangible. Businesses lose revenue, perishable goods are put at risk, electronic systems shut down, and households are forced to put routines on hold. In communities where small enterprises rely on consistent electricity to survive, such disruptions can mean the difference between meeting daily expenses and operating at a loss.
In this instance, the outage was caused when a contractor’s equipment came into contact with a high-voltage line, rupturing it. Compounding the initial damage was the decision to leave the scene without alerting the power utility. That action delayed critical information from reaching those responsible for safeguarding the grid and restoring service, and it reflects a troubling disregard for public responsibility. While the technical team acted swiftly once informed, speed of response does not erase the inconvenience suffered by residents and businesses during the outage.
This incident cannot be treated as an isolated lapse. Across the country, public utilities repeatedly report damage to power lines, water mains, roads, and telecommunications infrastructure caused by construction and excavation activities. Each occurrence carries a financial cost that is ultimately borne by the public, either through service disruptions, repair expenses, or lost productivity. When such damage is met with little consequence, it creates an environment where negligence becomes normalised rather than deterred.
Accountability must therefore be the central issue and contractors operating near public infrastructure have a duty to conduct proper site assessments, adhere to safety protocols, and coordinate with utility providers before and during works. These responsibilities are not optional but should be fundamental to professional practice. Failure to meet them should attract clear and enforceable penalties, including fines, liability for repair costs, and, where appropriate, suspension of operating licences.
The involvement of law enforcement, as directed by the ministry, signals an important shift towards treating such incidents with the seriousness they deserve. Damage to critical infrastructure is an act with economic and social consequences. Enforcement mechanisms must be strengthened to ensure that contractors understand that negligence will not be quietly absorbed by utilities or communities.
Beyond enforcement, there is a need for a broader cultural change within the construction and contracting sector. Rapid development and infrastructure expansion cannot come at the expense of basic standards of care. Growth that undermines existing services ultimately weakens public confidence and strains state resources. Regulatory agencies, utilities, and contractors must work together to establish clearer communication channels, mandatory notification systems, and stricter monitoring of works near sensitive installations.
Public utilities themselves are not without responsibility. Continuous public education, clearer marking of infrastructure, and proactive engagement with developers can reduce the risk of accidental damage. However, these measures cannot substitute for individual and corporate responsibility. When warnings are issued and guidelines are available, the onus rests squarely on those undertaking the work to comply.
The inconvenience suffered by residents and businesses in Eccles and Ruimveldt deserves recognition not only in words but in corrective action. Swift restoration of power addresses the immediate problem, but preventing recurrence requires firm follow-through. Each incident should be thoroughly investigated, costs transparently assessed, and consequences consistently applied. Selective enforcement or quiet settlements only perpetuate the cycle.
Ultimately, the protection of public property is a shared obligation, but enforcement must be uncompromising. Contractors who damage infrastructure through carelessness must be held fully accountable, not as a matter of punishment alone, but as a necessary safeguard for national development.