The magisterial inquiry into the death of Jean Paul Sofia shed light on how the tragedy last December unfolded.

A report by Alex Torpiano, an expert appointed by the magistrate to help in the inquiry, explained how the building collapsed, but it also highlights just how important a public inquiry into the incident is.

There was no advanced warning of the collapse, and it happened in a matter of seconds, the report reads.

The expert’s report found many issues on the site. For one, it read that parts of the building weren’t tied together. Secondly, it read that there was no licensed builder on site overlooking the works. It also read that the workers themselves didn’t have formal construction training. There was no register of who was on site, it continued.

The report, among other things, also read that the architect did not provide detailed instructions of how to tie, for instance, metal between planks to the spreader beam.

It will now be up to the courts to take a decision on the allegations filed against the five people accused.

But the inquiry does raise wider concerns about the construction industry. Firstly… where on earth were the watchdogs?

According to the report, the CEO of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority (OHSA) said that the owners did not advise the authority about the workplace, and so the project didn’t fall under its radar. There was no inspection by the authority’s officials, not even to see if the site was safe for workers, or if they had the required protective gear, it read. This is absolutely unacceptable, especially on a project which was being built on government land. Did nobody from any other department inform the OHSA about such a project? Where is the accountability? One must ask… if this is the case on this project, how many others are lacking any oversight? This is exactly why a public inquiry is needed, to identify the wrong practices in the industry, to identify the shortcomings and failings of the authorities and put forward recommendations of how these can be solved.

The Prime Minister was wrong to refuse to launch a public inquiry for so many months, but public pressure was, rightly, far too great, and he eventually u-turned. The inquiring magistrate herself mentions in the report that the magisterial inquiry did not have, and legally couldn’t have, the direct scope to examine if there were any administrative or legislative shortcomings. This in itself also highlights just how important it is for the public inquiry to be taking place. 

Of course launching a public inquiry will not be enough. One absolutely must ensure that the recommendations that will be made at the end will be followed through.

The government has introduced the licensing regime for building contractors. As explained in a recent editorial, it is seeing some criticism by entities regarding the insurance regime and all sides should come to the table and decide on what is best for third parties and construction workers. One also hopes that enforcement will be strict. It will need to be in order for it to succeed. The government also launched a public consultation on the licensing of masons.

These proposals and laws will hopefully provide better control over an industry which many, for years and years, have viewed as being run by cowboys.