After Enugu Building Collapse, Experts Point to Negligence and Regulatory Failures

Enugu Building Collapse: The Real Question Is What Happened Before the Building Fell

A building collapse is usually reported in seconds: the structure came down, people were trapped, rescuers arrived and the death toll followed.

But the real story often begins months or years before the concrete hits the ground.

That question has returned to the centre of the Enugu building collapse after professionals who inspected the site blamed what they described as severe negligence, inadequate materials and failures in construction supervision.

The four-storey structure collapsed on Sunday, killing one person and critically injuring another, while several others were rushed to hospital.

Experts from the Nigerian Institute of Town Planners and Nigerian Institute of Building subsequently visited the site to examine the circumstances surrounding the collapse.

Their preliminary assessment went beyond the collapsed structure itself.

Dr Christopher Anierobi, Chairman of the NITP in Enugu, said the visible construction work pointed to what he described as gross negligence.

ADVERTISEMENT

“This collapse is a result of gross negligence,” Anierobi said, while also pointing to inadequate material mixtures and what he described as a failure of professional supervision.

The NIOB raised similar concerns over quality management, health and safety planning and construction management.

The experts also drew attention to a broader regulatory problem. They said Enugu’s urban development is still operating under an outdated 1979 planning framework and called for the domestication of relevant planning and building laws.

ValidViewNetwork had earlier raised the broader question of what happens before a building collapses.

The latest findings make that question even more urgent.

The Enugu Capital Territory Development Authority reportedly confirmed that the developer obtained structural approvals.

Preliminary checks, however, allegedly revealed deviations from approved engineering drawings, densification violations and structural modifications that were not properly monitored.

That raises a difficult question. If a building is approved but construction allegedly departs from the approved plans, who is expected to detect the deviation before the structure becomes dangerous?

There is also concern about a neighbouring structure that survived the collapse. Experts warned that the impact could have affected its structural integrity and recommended non-destructive testing before it is declared safe for occupation.

The incident therefore deserves more than condolences and the usual calls for caution.

If negligence is established, those responsible should face the consequences provided by law.

If regulatory failures are established, the institutions responsible must also answer.

But accountability must follow evidence.

No developer, engineer, official or other individual should be condemned merely because public anger demands an immediate culprit.

The proper response to a building disaster is investigation, evidence, accountability and lawful enforcement. The rubble should be cleared, but the unanswered questions must not be buried with it, ValidViewNetwork reports.