The authorities are still trying to understand what caused a wall to collapse at the Seabank Hotel last week after architects dampened the initial suggestion that a crane accidentally tipped the brick structure.

The incident prompted safety fears among workers as this was the construction site’s second accident in five weeks, following the collapse last month that left a young Latvian worker dead.

Unlike the fatal collapse in March, last week’s case is not being investigated by a magistrate because it had no serious consequences, even though sources said two workers were slightly hurt.

Seabank officials, who deny anyone was injured except for scratches, have totally ruled out the possibility that the incident could be attributed to structural defects.

The hotel forwarded to The Times two short technical reports, which say that the wall must have been hit by some type of force.

The Occupational Health and Safety Authority is still investigating and has not ruled out anything.

Asked whether the brick wall could have collapsed because of a crane, a structural defect or the wind, the OHSA said: “Investigation into the accident will remain ongoing... To date, no potential cause of the collapse is being ruled out by OHSA.”

The health and safety watchdog contacted The Times last week after the newspaper reported the wall was tipped by a crane. The OHSA wanted to find out how this theory developed because none of those questioned had mentioned a crane.

Seabank CEO Arthur Gauci originally insisted that the incident occurred because of a crane. But responding to questions yesterday, he said his first comments were made when internal investigations were still ongoing and the crane explanation was the only apparent one.

Mystery over hotel wall fall

“Since then, two separate reports were commissioned and the conclusions are congruent in the sense that both indicate that some lateral force caused the fall of the bricks onto a predalle slab (precast concrete slab), on which no concrete topping was yet cast. However, it could not be established with certainty what this lateral force was,” he said.

In the first report, engineer Pierre Farrugia attributes the collapse to “lateral loading (probably wind gust)”.

In the second, architect Joseph Zammit excludes wind loads since the climatic conditions at the time were “normal”.

He adds that, although the wall could not have collapsed unless it was subjected to a lateral force, the two cranes nearby were not in operation at the time because the incident happened during the lunch break.

Mr Gauci stressed the company had nothing to hide, adding that any accidents that occurred on site were the responsibility of the various contractors employed by Seabank, the developers.

“Our role as developers is to agree to the project and make available the necessary funding.... We reiterate that on a site spanning nearly 25,000 square metres, minor incidents may occur despite all the safety precautions that one may have in place. We are the first to ensure and take all safety measures to minimise and, if possible, eliminate altogether such occurrences,” he said.

He added that the company’s past record was testimony to this and getting workers to comply with health and safety regulations was sometimes an “uphill struggle”.

The Times was initially alerted to the incident last week by workers who witnessed a wall crashing down, bringing the ceiling of a couple of rooms with it. One of these witnesses, who spoke to The Times in confidence, consistently denied a crane caused the collapse. “They’re saying nobody was injured but I saw the two people who were hurt with my own eyes. It can’t have been a scratch given all the blood on his face,” he said, referring claims by the company that the slight injuries reported were just a scratch.

The worker has refused to be identified or to speak to the OHSA for fear of being blacklisted.

The OHSA has told The Times it was having difficulty speaking to witnesses and had not yet managed to question anyone who had actually witnessed the wall’s collapse.

The massive complex is undergoing major renovation and expansion, as it plans on becoming Malta’s largest hotel.

An old section of the hotel was reopened to guests last weekend as part of a staggered opening of the property.

“All other parts of the hotel in which works are still under way have been sealed and put off limits to hotel clients,” Mr Gauci said