Content partner
4 minute read
3 Jul 2018
7:50 am

Grayston bridge: No cross-examination would be ‘gross oversight’


New commissioner and M&R advocate in screaming match.

The Grayston bridge collapse inquiry continues after numerous delays. Picture: Neil McCartney

An effort by Murray & Roberts (M&R) and other ‘protagonists’ to prevent cross-examination of witnesses in the Department of Labour’s inquiry into the collapse of the Grayston bridge structure in October 2015 failed on Monday when the proceedings resumed.

Two people were killed and 19 injured when a temporary works structure collapsed onto the busy freeway on October 14, 2015. The construction work was being done without interrupting the traffic, and the scaffolding fell onto vehicles that were travelling underneath in mid-afternoon traffic.

Newly-appointed commissioner Phumudzo Maphaha on Monday ruled against the proposal by advocate Sias Reyneke SC acting for M&R, without even hearing other parties on the matter.

Reyneke suggested that comprehensive witness statements should be submitted on the basis of which parties could submit written questions, but no cross-examination should be allowed.

Maphaha however rejected this, saying it would be a “gross oversight” and an “act of injustice” for him not to cross-examine witnesses should he need further information.

“Cross-examination is not up for discussion,” Maphaha said.

Maphaha has taken over from his colleague Lennie Samuels who earlier presided over the inquiry, but had to step down due to health issues.

The inquiry is aimed at identifying who was responsible for the collapse in 2015 and making recommendations to prevent similar incidents. It has so far only sat for 17 days and has only heard testimony from expert witnesses.

The main parties before the inquiry are Murray & Roberts as principle contractor and material supplier, its client the Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA), the JDA’s agent Royal HaskoningDHV and Form-Scaff, the supplier of some of the scaffolding.

Certain individual employees of M&R have their own legal representatives, while trade union Numsa is representing others.

On Monday Roxana le Roux, an environmental and occupational health and safety consultant from Nemai Consulting, testified. Nemai did health and safety audits on site on behalf of the JDA.

From Le Roux’s testimony it was clear that the appointment letters and/or competency certificates of several key role players were outstanding during a site and documentary inspection on September 30, 2015, about two weeks before the incident. This included those for a temporary works designer and a scaffolding erector.

Le Roux stated that Form-Scaff was appointed as temporary works designer, but confirmed that the appointment letter was outstanding and that she never saw an individual who fulfilled that role on site. In terms of the regulations, the designer must “design, inspect and approve” the temporary works before use.

She testified that there were no records that the structure was regularly checked and findings reported.

Signage to indicate to workers whether it was safe to move onto the scaffolding had also been outstanding, she testified.

She further confirmed that she saw no single, comprehensive design sketch of the whole structure or any plan to indicate the sequence in which the structure should be constructed.

Reyneke, on behalf of M&R, strongly objected when Maphaha asked Le Roux during cross-examination about “non-compliance” on site. He said that was asking the witness to draw a legal conclusion, which was the job of the commission or the courts.

What followed boiled down to a screaming match between Maphaha and Reyneke.

Maphaha told Reyneke he was “trying to run a commission on a wrong chair” and accused him of prohibiting him as commissioner from performing his functions. He raised the issue of Reyneke’s efforts to prevent cross-examination and asked: “Why are you protecting this witness?”

Reyneke hit back, saying that he was protecting the procedure.

Maphaha then rephrased his question and the hearing proceeded.

Maphaha asked Le Roux why she had failed to stop the activity on site in light of the safety risk to workers. She said there was no good reason to do so and maintained that workers were briefed about the risks during the daily “mini-risk assessment” meetings.

Willem le Roux, attorney for the JDA, asked her if she had ever attended any such meetings. She confirmed that she did not, but relied on the attendance register to confirm that workers were properly briefed about the risks.

The hearing will proceed on Tuesday with the testimony of the temporary works supervisor Oliver Aadnesgaard and Hein Pretorius from M&R.

Brought to you by Moneyweb

For more news your way, follow The Citizen on Facebook and Twitter.