Editorial

The findings of the preliminary inquiry into the Simshar tragedy almost a year ago may leave a lot of unanswered questions and even place the sole survivor, Simon Bugeja, in an awkward position due to discrepancies in his accounts. However, rumours and unfounded allegations have also been dispelled and, more importantly, there are lessons to learn.

The inquiry was conducted by lawyer Ann Fenech in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act. The report is dated June 26 and refers to an incident that occurred on July 11, 2008, meaning it took 11 months to complete but, at least, finished it was and duly published.

It must be pointed out at this stage that, in sharp contrast with what happened here, the magisterial inquiry into the same incident is still open.

The public's right to know, especially as in such high profile cases of national interest, is denied when the findings of inquiries remain under wraps, as indeed happened with the report of the investigation into the young soldier's death during military exercises, to name just one example.

Back to the Simshar report. Judging by what is known so far, there is no evidence that any foul play was involved, either by those on board the fishing boat or by third parties.

It also results, based on injuries sustained by at least one of the victims, that there must have been some form of explosion and/or fire, although the cause remains a mystery.

One hopes and augurs that no stone is left unturned, within reason, of course, to find as many answers as possible to areas of the tragedy that remain unexplained. Until that happens, it would be wise to avoid speculation and conjecture. But it would help if such an exercise, including the magisterial inquiry, takes place as early as possible and findings immediately placed in the public domain.

In the case of the preliminary report, there is certainly the need for the recommendations made by Dr Fenech to be acted upon and implemented immediately.

To start with, how can the authorities allow a legally-registered vessel ply the seas bearing a name that is different to that on the books? That may sound insignificant but not in this case. Indeed, when the armed forces entered the name Simshar on the vessel monitoring system after the alarm was raised nothing came up for the simple reason that registered on the system was the name Samsher.

Another crucial element is the proper use of onboard safety equipment. Dr Fenech concludes that, in her view, had Mr Bugeja activated three devices he had on board none of the four people would have died. It appears that Mr Bugeja was not too familiar with such equipment!

Dr Fenech also comments that fishermen have a cavalier attitude towards safety. In the circumstances, she feels the authorities should insist on mandatory training sessions for fishermen in the use of safety equipment. Indeed, Dr Fenech even suggests such training be promoted nation-wide given the popularity of pleasure sea craft.

Furthermore, the report urges closer coordination between the armed forces and fishermen in such instances.

Dr Fenech is suggesting that her preliminary report is forwarded to the inquiring magistrate for his perusal and consideration, rather than launching a formal investigation under the Merchant Shipping Act. That is a wise recommendation, provided the magisterial inquiry is concluded as soon as possible and published forthwith.