From tears to a river of hope: an industry under the microscope

Isabelle Bonnici’s testimony in front of the public inquiry into her son’s death made for compelling reading. 

Here was a mother putting her vulnerability on display, telling the inquiry how she will be unable to see her son get married and grow up. 

Every parent understands the hurt in Isabelle’s words. No parent wants to bury their own children as she had to do in December last year when her only son, Jean Paul Sofia, died after a factory building under construction collapsed. 

“That day, my life was turned upside down,” she told the inquiry board. 

Since that fateful day, Isabelle has come to represent the yearning of many people who want to see the cowboys in the construction industry brought to heel. 

More significantly, in her testimony, Isabelle called for a thorough probe into the workings of an industry that has claimed too many lives over the years. In her son’s case it was poor workmanship, fraudulent documents and a lack of professional supervision that caused the collapse. In other cases, it has been lack of adherence to safety standards, leading to avoidable accidents. 

“I want the tears that I wept to become a river of hope,” Isabelle told the inquiry board. “I am expecting justice... to make the industry safer and for the number of workplace deaths to become fewer every year.” 

Her altruistic call for scrutiny of the building industry is a legitimate expectation that many agree with. Environmental activists have long called for a critical review of the industry, its work practices and its linkages with power structures. But those calls, which may have been side lined as criticism from fringe groups, have now been taken up by ordinary individuals like Isabelle. 

For too long, politicians and public authorities have acted with leniency when dealing with developers and construction companies. Misdemeanours are overlooked, brushed under the carpet or corrected with a slap of the hand, creating a sense of impunity. Robert Abela’s months-long reluctance to hold a public inquiry simply fuelled the perception that he had something to hide; that he wanted to cover up for the perpetrators and their enablers. 

It was good that he finally capitulated to the demands of a grieving but resolute mother. Investigating the widely-held belief that the construction industry acts with impunity is just one of the reasons why the public inquiry that Isabelle demanded was necessary. 

Isabelle implored the board to do more than scratch the surface of the problem. “I will not see my son marry… I hope that his death with lead to meaningful change,” she concluded her statement to the board. 

Meaningful change is what this leader expects as well. The licensing of contractors enacted for the first time this year is a positive step forward. 

However, having good laws and structures becomes meaningless if they are not enforced. And even then, action taken when rules are breached should be strong enough to deter abuse. 

During the same session of the public inquiry, Public Works Minister Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi testified that the Building and Construction Authority has only 20 inspectors to carry out enforcement around Malta and Gozo. 

This number is ridiculous when one considers the volume of construction projects underway in every street and corner of our towns and villages. Through the magisterial inquiry into the Sofia death we know that not one inspection was carried out on the Corradino factory that was under construction. 

But even if the number of inspectors were to triple, the only way to sensitise the industry on the need to adhere scrupulously to the rules is by hitting it where it hurts most – the bottom line. 

There should be massive fines and the possibility of withdrawing licenses for those who err. Fines that run into a few thousands are ineffective when the builder knows they can recover the expense and still have a generous return from the sale of just one apartment. 

The industry can no longer be treated with kids gloves. It has to professionalise, even if this means market consolidation. There is no place for amateurs. 

In Jean Paul Sofia’s case, amateurism proved deadly. 

The public inquiry will hopefully dig deep enough to expose the faults and chart out a better system of controls and accountability. Government should then implement any recommendations without delay. 

This leader also hopes that the linkages between the construction industry and political parties are scrutinised. In the Sofia case, it must be established whether the procedures adopted to hand over public land to the developers were correct. But more than this, the inquiry must delve into the type of scrutiny, if at all, is done on prospective developers granted industrial land (in the Sofia case, the two developers had serious criminal precedents that do not appear to have lit any red light); and whether the fast track planning approach to such developments in industrial zones are being construed as a way to cut corners. 

“I have many questions,” Isabelle told the inquiry board. She is not alone and hopefully the public inquiry will help find the answers to these questions so that Jean Paul’s death will not be in vain.