An independent inquiry into the deadliest fire in Hong Kong in decades has highlighted a series of failures linked to the Tai Po blaze last November, which claimed 168 lives and displaced thousands. The inquiry’s lead counsel, Victor Dawes, pointed to both unscrupulous contractors involved in building renovations and systemic shortcomings in government regulation and coordination as key factors contributing to the tragedy.

Dawes described the Wang Fuk Court fire as “preventable but not prevented” and “foreseeable but not foreseen.” The incident primarily affected seven of the eight towers in the complex and was likely triggered by a lit cigarette butt found in a rooftop lightwell. The fire’s rapid spread was accelerated by flammable materials used during renovations, including polystyrene boards and wooden window coverings, which also produced dense smoke, impeding escape routes.

During months of public hearings, about 80 victims, experts, and officials testified as the inquiry sought to determine how the fire occurred and whether existing safety regulations were adequate. The committee, chaired by Mr Justice David Lok, will compile a final report with recommendations for government action later this year; however, it lacks authority to assign legal or criminal responsibility.

Authorities have taken steps in response to the inquiry’s findings. Last month, seven individuals and two companies faced charges ranging from regulatory offenses to manslaughter. Investigations identified poorly maintained safety netting and the use of combustible materials during renovations as factors exacerbating the fire. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and police continue to pursue legal action against those implicated.

Dawes criticized an “honour system” in which regulatory bodies allowed contractors to self-certify compliance without sufficient verification. He noted that pre-announced inspections facilitated deception by renovation companies and that governmental bodies failed to adequately investigate residents’ complaints about construction irregularities. These lapses, he argued, created opportunities for fraudulent activities and underscored the need for structural reforms within regulatory agencies.

While some officials did testify, no senior political leaders appeared before the inquiry. This absence, combined with the inquiry’s limited statutory powers, has raised concerns about accountability. John Burns, emeritus professor at the University of Hong Kong, acknowledged the inquiry’s transparency but noted that it did not seek the full powers available to hold officials responsible. Burns suggested that Beijing’s cautious approach—amid ongoing political sensitivities after the 2019 protests—reflects a reluctance to relinquish control over the process. He added that the incident and its management may affect the prospects of Chief Executive John Lee’s bid for a second term, highlighting public demand for clearer accountability.

Representing government bureaus, lawyer Jenkin Suen recognized regulatory weaknesses during testimony but disputed direct government responsibility for the fire. He outlined recent reforms including the cessation of pre-announced inspections, enhanced interdepartmental coordination, and bans on combustible external building materials. A government statement also confirmed measures such as banning smoking at construction sites and ongoing reviews of renovation laws and bidding procedures. The statement reaffirmed that accountability will be pursued based on facts and evidence, as emphasized repeatedly by the chief executive.

As the committee prepares its final report, questions remain about how and when comprehensive reforms will be implemented to prevent similar tragedies in the future and ensure that those responsible are held to account.