Tragedy in Tuschen: The Adrianna Younge Case and Guyana’s Fight for Truth

Tragedy in Tuschen: The Adrianna Younge Case and Guyana’s Fight for Truth

In April 2025, Guyana was shaken to its core. Eleven-year-old Adrianna Younge went missing on April 23 after spending the afternoon at the Double Day Hotel in Tuschen, Region Three. Less than a day later, her lifeless body was found in the same hotel pool. The discovery ignited nationwide outrage. Protesters blocked roads, crowds gathered in anguish, and the Double Day Hotel was eventually set ablaze—a fiery emblem of public fury over what many feared was not an accident, but a cover-up.

Authorities scrambled to manage the crisis. Police Commissioner Clifton Hicken appointed a special task force and pledged to “uncover the full truth.” President Irfaan Ali echoed that commitment, vowing that “no resource will be spared.” Yet despite these assurances, public faith in the state’s response quickly began to erode, exposing a deeper crisis of confidence in Guyana’s institutions.

Adrianna had arrived at the hotel with her grandmother and relatives on the afternoon of April 23. She purchased a pool wristband and was last seen swimming around 1:10 PM. As hours passed without a sign of her, her family grew alarmed and filed a police report around 3:30 PM. That evening, officers claimed to have reviewed hotel surveillance footage and reported seeing Adrianna enter a red-and-black Toyota Raum, driven by a man identified only as “Orlando.” That claim was later retracted.

Around 10:00 AM the following morning, hotel staff discovered Adrianna’s body in the pool. Public suspicions deepened. By midday, the hotel and its owner’s home had been set ablaze amid widespread unrest—an eruption of long-simmering anger over perceived impunity and corruption.

President Ali visited Tuschen the next day, ordering a full-scale investigation and reiterating his commitment to transparency. Commissioner Hicken soon acknowledged failures in the initial investigation. Regional Commander Khalid Mandall was placed on administrative leave, and other officers were reassigned or placed under review.

An international forensic team—comprising pathologists from New York, Barbados, and Delaware—conducted an autopsy on April 28. They concluded Adrianna had died by drowning and found no evidence of sexual assault, broken bones, or defensive wounds. While some viewed the report as definitive, then family attorney Darren Wade maintained that the findings did not preclude foul play.

The history of the Double Day Hotel only intensified suspicions. In 2012, a young mechanic was found dead in the same pool under mysterious circumstances. Charges against the owner’s son and a staff member were later dropped. Residents have since alleged a longstanding pattern of cover-ups and police complicity. Many community members claimed Adrianna’s body could not have been in the pool during earlier searches, leading to the chilling suspicion that she had been killed elsewhere and placed there later.

As public scrutiny intensified, civil society began to speak out. On April 27, the Rights of the Child Commission issued a statement condemning the incident as a violation of Adrianna’s “fundamental right to safety, protection, and life.” They demanded a “swift, transparent, and thorough investigation.” On May 13, the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) issued a blistering critique of the official narrative, calling attention to inconsistencies, missing CCTV footage, and the erosion of public trust. They warned of “a crisis of credibility” and urged international oversight.

Throughout this period, the government maintained its position. President Ali accepted the autopsy results and urged calm, denouncing what he called “mob justice.” Investigations continued into multiple persons of interest, including the hotel owner and staff. No one had been formally charged by mid-May, though authorities maintained that the investigation was ongoing.

The Adrianna Younge case has raised profound constitutional questions. Article 138 of the Guyana Constitution guarantees the right to life. Article 139 protects personal liberty, while Article 147 affirms the right to peaceful assembly. Protesters invoking these rights clashed with police, who at times employed tear gas and rubber pellets—actions that now face scrutiny under Article 141, which prohibits cruel and inhuman treatment. Legal observers have also invoked the principle of habeas corpus—not in its traditional form, but as a metaphor for a broader right to truth and state accountability. Where is the evidence? Who is responsible? What is being withheld? These are the demands that have echoed across Guyana in the wake of Adrianna’s death.

The case has also become a flashpoint in Guyanese politics. Opposition leader Aubrey Norton condemned the tragedy and called for justice, while distancing his coalition from the looting and arson. Some opposition figures declared outright that Adrianna was murdered and accused the government of a cover-up.

In response, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo accused the opposition of politicizing the tragedy. He criticized their premature declarations of foul play.  Yet critics argue that Jagdeo’s response deflected attention from institutional failings, framing community outrage as partisan manipulation rather than legitimate civic dissent. Moreover, his characterization of the protests as partisan diversions shifted attention away from the state’s own missteps, including the mishandling of evidence, inconsistent public statements, and the troubling legacy of the hotel itself.

With national elections looming, the Adrianna Younge case has exposed the fragile intersection of governance, justice, and public trust. Its outcome may shape not only the future of one investigation, but the credibility of state institutions in the eyes of a deeply unsettled nation. This tragedy is no longer just about a single child’s fate. It is about Guyana’s ability to uphold the rule of law. It is about whether its leaders can transcend partisanship to ensure truth and justice prevail.

If the authorities fulfill their pledge to uncover the full truth, they may begin to restore public confidence. If they do not, the damage to Guyana’s democratic project—its social fabric, moral credibility, and constitutional integrity—may be lasting. For Adrianna’s family and for Guyana, the stakes could not be higher.