From issuing a press release that misled an entire nation to one that left more questions than answers, it is clear that any probe into the death of 11-year-old Adriana Younge must include a full inquiry of what went wrong procedurally in the Guyana Police Force (GPF)’s initial response to the child’s disappearance. Whether the investigations into Adriana’s death and the GPF’s conduct are pursued separately, or part of a broader, interconnected probe, the public deserves a transparent account of how our premier law enforcement agency reacted poorly at a time when it needed to serve and protect.
The GPF issued a statement to the press on April 23, 2025, stating that footage from the Regional Command Centre placed Adriana outside of the Double Day Hotel at Tuschen on that day, entering a vehicle. But family members were adamant that the child was still within the premises, where she had disappeared during an outing with relatives.
Adriana’s father was sent on the proverbial “goose chase”, trying to locate his daughter, but as he puts it, his “belly” told him his child was still in the hotel, which was at that time, being guarded. Despite several searches of the pool and other accessible areas of the hotel, Adriana was nowhere to be found. For some, perhaps turning up empty-handed might have been enough to vindicate the force’s statement and call off the search, but for many, including Adriana’s parents, they remained defiant that she was still in that establishment.
Still determined, they showed up the following day and were joined by scores of concerned relatives and residents. It was after talks emerged of bringing in the sniffer dogs that Adriana’s body was found floating in the pool — the same one that had been searched the night before. Searchers were furious, and the hotel was burned and looted, while a confused police force looked on helplessly on the sidelines. The home of the hotel owner was also set on fire, the Tuschen Public Road was blocked, and the entire area was engulfed in smoke.
The police force subsequently withdrew its statement on Adriana’s disappearance, saying, “it has been determined that certain details contained in the initial statement circulated were inaccurate”. It did not say which details.
Still, its admission got it no favours. The nation had already been bitten twice and was very much shy. The force was still reeling from what happened in Linden several days before, where a protest over the fatal police shooting of a young man ended in further tragedy. Another resident, who was reportedly demanding justice for his slain friend, was also shot and killed, reportedly by police fire.
Once again, the police force was at the forefront of controversy, and its conduct was brought into question. Still spiralling under pressure and seemingly desperate to save face, it issued a second missive on May 1, 2025, outlining its version of what went wrong at the Command Centre that led to the misleading April 23 statement. But instead of providing clarity, the statement raised even more questions, and perhaps more damningly, it exposed the depth of the sloppiness that marked the handling of the case from the very beginning.
The May 1 statement said that the civilian staff member, who was tasked with determining whether Adriana had left the hotel, mistakenly entered the wrong date into the surveillance system. Yet, the staffer reported seeing a child matching Adriana’s description: same build, height, complexion, and even clothing, leaving the hotel with a man. What are the chances that a clerical error, on an entirely different date, would coincidentally produce footage of a child nearly identical to the one being searched for? But even if there was doubt, Adriana Younge’s mother reportedly told investigators that the child in the footage was not her 11-year-old daughter. Still, the April 23 release was issued to the public.
The force also claimed to have reviewed footage which showed the child leaving in a car. After Adriana was found dead in the pool, the force came under intense pressure to release this footage, but that was never done. Interestingly, the police force’s May 1 statement did not mention any footage regarding the child leaving the hotel in a car. It only spoke about the footage of the child who looked like Adriana leaving with a male.
So, was there ever any footage? The May 1 missive contains the answer. It said that a Sergeant (not named by police) from the Special Constabulary Unit “misled” her colleagues when she claimed to have been contacted by an anonymous caller, who informed her that Adriana was seen leaving the hotel in a motor vehicle. The police later arrested the so-called anonymous caller.
And here’s the twist: turns out that the caller and the Sergeant are not just acquaintances, but they are “well” acquainted, according to the police. What exactly that means remains unclear.
During questioning, the caller admitted to not personally seeing Adriana leave, but instead, told cops that the information was obtained by overhearing persons saying the 11-year-old had left in a car. That information, the caller said, was then passed on to the Sergeant during a 10-minute call. The officer then, in turn, presented the intel to investigators as a credible tip.
One would have expected a senior rank, such as a Sergeant, to have exercised better judgment and scrutinised the authenticity of such information before acting upon it. Or perhaps, the onus was not on her, but on the investigators to whom she shared the information.
Regardless, the muck-up exposes terrible police work and solidifies the argument that the Guyana Police Force’s response to this case must be probed. There were simply too many mistakes. In fact, there were at least three critical failures in the initial handling of this case: an unnamed staffer entering the wrong date and misidentifying the child; an unnamed sergeant acting on a tip from an unnamed man, who had not witnessed anything firsthand but merely overheard individuals talking; and the police issuing a public statement based entirely on this unverified chain of hearsay. The outcome led to an irate and distraught community.
One can argue that the May 1 statement contains sufficient grounds to sue the Guyana Police Force for negligence, emotional distress and dereliction of duty.
Nevertheless, while the May 1 statement might have been intended to clear the air about the police’s missteps in its misleading missive, it confirmed that the investigation sufferred a complete breakdown from the start. Even if these errors were purely coincidental, their outcome was identical, with each misstep pointing to the same false conclusion that Adriana Younge had left the hotel.
Coincidence or not, the force’s actions in the disappearance of this child must be taken into account in any investigation. While the police force has confirmed that the civilian staff member has been sent on leave and at least two others fired, it did not say what action was taken against the anonymous caller. Further, it did not explain this mystery figure’s presence at the hotel at the time of the search.
To date, the police force has not provided any additional information on the status of its internal probe.
Most worrying is the noticeable absence of the force’s commentary on the former Region 3 Commander, Khalid Mandall’s conduct in the matter.
The statement unveils the errors of his subordinates, with the only mention of him being that he remains on administrative leave. His conduct during the initial part of the probe is also critical to determining whether his orders or those he presided over had any bearing on the unfortunate outcome of the case. Hence, a comprehensive inquiry into the police force’s response is crucial.
What makes this even more urgent is the chilling question on everyone’s lips: “While officers entered wrong dates and passed on unverified information, was Adriana possibly within reach of rescue?”
