The Jean Paul Sofia public inquiry is finally underway. The Board that was appointed by the Prime Minister did not waste any more time and, in spite of the fact that mid-August is considered to be a holiday period by many – and the law courts, where the sittings are being held, also take a break except for matters that cannot wait – three fruitful hearings have already gone by.

More are planned for the coming weeks as the Board seeks to stick to the five-month deadline that was imposed by the Prime Minister. If no extension is sought, we should have the report at the start of next year.

The Board is diligently collecting testimonies from all those who could contribute to the inquiry. The terms of reference include matters strictly pertaining to the tragic death of the 20-year-old Jean Paul following the collapse of a building under construction at Kordin last December, and other issues related to the construction industry in its entirety.

So far, apart from Sofia’s mother Isabelle Bonnici, who gave an emotional account of what she and her family went through, we have had ministers, police officers and top officials in construction industry authorities called up to be asked questions on how the system operates. The Board is being thorough in its line of questioning, and a pattern is already emerging on the discrepancies and shortcomings that exist in this sector. Much more will emerge in the next sittings.

We are sure that, at the end of the hearings, the three-man panel looking into Sofia’s death will come up with a comprehensive report that will shed more light on what happened in the weeks and months leading up to that tragic day – and also on the day Sofia died – and what is needed to possibly avoid more serious incidents on construction sites. We have had too many of them and, as Bonnici said in her testimony before the board of inquiry, it is hoped that the young man’s death will lead to a “meaningful change”.

It is however what happens after the report is completed and passed on to the Prime Minister that is a matter of concern. Will Robert Abela and his government take any action based on the recommendations that the board of inquiry draws up, or will the report be shelved in the hope that all will be forgotten?

In an article he wrote for this newspaper last week, Professor Kevin Aquilina made the following observation:  “Now that government has – reluctantly and belatedly – given the green light to the inquiry into Jean Paul Sofia’s death, the inevitable question that arises once the board of inquiry concludes its report will be: what will happen to the board of inquiry’s report? Will it meet the same fate of the Daphne Caruana Galizia Assassination board of inquiry report that – two years down the road – has remained totally unimplemented? Will it meet the same fate of Judge Giovanni Bonello's 30 November 2013 report on the holistic reform of the justice sector? Will it meet the same fate of Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera’s report on court experts?”

The question is clear enough. What will the government do once the Jean Paul Sofia report is concluded?

Let us remember how unwilling the Prime Minister was to establish the inquiry. He resisted it for months, ignoring calls by Jean Paul Sofia’s family and others. The Opposition had even filed a motion calling for its setting up and the government, spearheaded by Abela, voted against it, arguing that a magisterial inquiry – which has a different role to play than that of a public inquiry – is enough. Then, four days after the parliamentary vote and hours before a protest was to be staged in front of his office at Castille, Abela made a colossal U-turn and ordered a public inquiry.

Incidentally, and in a bid to cushion the negative effect of Abela’s one-eighty, the Labour media has labelled the inquiry as being “administrative”, rather than “public”. But there’s nothing One News can say to counter the fact that Abela had to succumb to public pressure and when he realised that he was losing popularity. Abela changed his mind not out of conviction, but out of political convenience.

Abela’s bigger test will arrive when the board of inquiry concludes its task and presents its final report. Time will tell if the Prime Minister would be willing to implement any, if not all, recommendations that are put forward. But, judging by what he, and his predecessor, have done on the reports mentioned earlier, we’re not holding our breath.