Opposition Leader Bernard Grech said on Tuesday that a public inquiry sitting into Jean Paul Sofia's death showed one of the reasons why Prime Minister Robert Abela initially did not want the public inquiry into the death to proceed.

In a Facebook post, Grech spoke in relation to media reports on Tuesday's sitting of the public inquiry into the 20-year-old's death at a construction site in Kordin last December.

The inquiry heard the testimony of former top construction sector regulator Michael Ferry, who said that the Building and Construction Authority's remit also extended to free-standing buildings, like the Corradino furniture factory that collapsed last December, killing Sofia.

This contradicted claims made by BCA officials in earlier sittings that the authority had no oversight of the site, as works did not impact any third parties. 

Ferry said that when he transitioned from the Buildings Regulation Office to the BCA, he had worked on drafting building codes, which can be enforced. He repeated that construction site management must be monitored by the BCA.

Grech said that it is now known that the authority responsible for regulating construction had the duty to regulate the site where Jean Paul Sofia died, and it failed to do so because they were not aware that it was their responsibility.

"Today's court sitting completely discredits the Building and Construction Authority," Grech said.

He said that the news continues to confirm the reasons why Abela chose to hide the truth and refuse to initiate a public inquiry.

"He did all this in the face of the pain of Jean Paul Sofia's family and friends and had to make a U-turn after the pressure from the Maltese people and the Nationalist Party," Grech said, adding that government then claims that the institutions are working properly.

BCA statement

The Building and Construction Authority said that its work is regulated by Chapter 623 of the laws of Malta, and nine pieces of subsidiary legislation. It said that the obligations that emerge from the laws, "in particular two of them, are relevant for the scope of the terms of the public inquiry and are very clear.  Legally, the responsibility of the authority is defined as follows, and not as was said in the public inquiry sitting. The aim of the subsidiary legislation mentioned in the testimony, which entered into force on 16 December 2022, is this: 'The scope of these regulations is to limit environmental degradation through appropriate construction management practices that cause the least nuisance to neighbours, to minimise the risk of injury  to  the  public,  to  protect  the  property  belonging  to  the Government and the local councils, and as much as possible to reduce the harm to the environment. These regulations shall have no bearing on the responsibilities related to construction sites emanating from other legislative instruments'," the BCA said.

"That is why it is wrong to say that this regulation as it is places the exclusive obligation on the authority for the safety of the structure of a building. Apart from that, the law gives powers to the Authority when it comes to properties that touch and affect properties of third parties and not other buildings. The aim and function of the authority are defined at law as mentioned above, and that is why, as has always happened, the operations of the authority follow that which is in the law. As such, that which was said regarding the authority's powers before the public inquiry board does not give a correct picture of the authority's powers.