Sharon’s Mall situated at Charlotte and King Streets was destroyed by fire last Wednesday evening. It is the latest in an unimaginably long list of buildings which have been consumed by flames since the foundation of the capital in 1781. In former times the overwhelming number of buildings were of wood, and only a small minority reached any higher than the typical two-storey colonial style home occupied by the more favoured members of society. While concrete and steel have replaced wood as the preferred material for construction purposes, this has not translated into fewer or less destructive fires.
If anything, the built environment has become even more hazardous since multi-storey structures are now being imposed on our landscape, the interiors of which harbour any manner of flammable materials. In addition, the electricity on which we nowadays are so dependent, is itself one of the major causes of fire in urban areas. While a full investigation has not yet been carried out, it would appear on the face of it, at least, that the Sharon’s Mall fire was electrical in origin. Although the nature of our buildings has changed dramatically and the kind of fires the GFS has to face are in some respects different from what obtained a century ago, the authorities have not adjusted their attitudes to the new situation. The laws have not been updated, firemen are not properly equipped to deal with a modern blaze, and training issues have not been addressed.
The Sharon’s Mall fire is just the latest example of what is wrong with our approach to fire preparedness. The progress of the conflagration was almost leisurely, being restricted in its fairly lengthy initial phases to smoke. Maintenance and Security Officer Quency Smith told this newspaper that around 5.15 pm he was alerted by a tenant on the second floor that smoke was coming through a vent, and so he made his way to the third floor to find out if any was there, but saw no evidence of it. Returning downstairs he turned off the breakers to cut the current to the building, and then went back upstairs again to tell people to evacuate. In the meantime, Attorney Dexter Todd who had an office in the Mall called the Fire Chief, following which the engines arrived within three or four minutes. The firefighters were taken to where the smoke had first been seen, but what they did then is not known.
Some reports that this newspaper received said smoke was first noticed between 4.30 and 5 pm, but either way, thick smoke was seen emanating from the Charlotte Street entrance some time later, and then the building burst into flames around 7.18 pm. One tenant, Ms Natasha Rafferty told Stabroek News that she heard an explosion as the fire gutted the building, while Attorney Ramona Rookhum who had an office on the third floor and was there at the beginning, said they were unaware there was a fire since there was no fire alarm or sprinkler system, while out in the hallway there were no fire extinguishers in evidence.
Attorney Paula Nicholson said that it appeared as though the fire was burning between the ceiling of the second floor and the flooring of the third, and made the observation that the fire-fighters thought it was an electrical fire and were consequently focusing their efforts on managing electricity issues rather than extinguishing the fire with water. In concert with others, she was of the view that if the Fire Service had been better equipped to deal with a fire of this nature, the building could have been saved. She described how more than an hour was spent operating as though the fire were electrical, with nothing accomplished, and only when smoke began to billow through the sides of the building did the fire-fighters decide to use water.
Her observation about the misjudgement on the part of the GFS as to the nature of the problem is probably accurate, as several witnesses to whom this newspaper spoke referred to what they described as the “laid-back” attitude of the fire-fighters or their seeming inactivity. One recalled seeing fire trucks parked and firemen just walking around. If it is indeed the case that they thought the fire was electrical, why did they not try and establish that fact first instead of just proceeding on an assumption? It would have been an easy enough matter to find out whether there was current in the building, and simple communication does not require sophisticated equipment. Had they established that, they would then have been in a position to deduce what Home Affairs Minister Robeson Benn concluded, namely, that the fire was probably “slowly moving along the wiring conduits of the building”.
Fire Chief Kalamadeen Edoo has insisted that the Fire Service did an excellent job. He was reported as saying that the building was a “complicated” one, and almost every business in the Mall was grilled, preventing them from properly accessing all areas. He is certainly justified in describing the building as a “complicated” one, but as for access, why is it that the GFS is not provided with the kind of tools which would allow them to break through grillwork? After all, nowadays, nearly all structures are grilled for safety reasons.
The Fire Chief also told this newspaper that the whole building was smoke-logged, making it difficult to ascertain precisely where the smoke was coming from, and therefore it made no sense to use water without getting to the source of the fire. As we reported, however, the fire-fighters were shown where the smoke was first seen, and that was before the building became enveloped in smoke, but they did not use water at that stage. He spoke about the smoke becoming stifling, causing minor injuries to six fire-fighters. Although at the point it became stifling it might already have been too late to prevent the inferno, it is worth remarking that those who fight fires should be provided with breathing equipment should that become necessary, as are many other foreign forces.
For his part Minister Benn was reported as saying the Fire Service needed to become more familiar with the different types of building construction, their challenges and in getting actively engaged at a scene. Furthermore, he said, buildings more than two storeys high should have fire alarms and sprinkler systems. He had said almost the same thing at a fire at Sheriff and John Streets last year, when he had also commented that such buildings should be equipped with sprinkler systems. One can only observe that unless that is written into law, it will not happen.
The day following the Sharon’s Mall fire, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a sanctimonious release reminding the public of the need to install smoke detectors, fire alarms, extinguishers and other fire appliances. In addition, it said, that riser mains with hoses and sprinkler systems should be installed in buildings over two stories high. Building inspections for electrical and fire safety compliance, it said, are mandatory for such buildings and should be diligently pursued.
Five years ago at a conference Mr Compton Sparman, with many years of experience in the GFS said that 1,000 buildings had gone up in flames in 2015 (the public does not know what the current figures are), and called for the introduction of a building code which would ensure people’s protection in the event of a fire. In other words, he was advocating a change in the law, rather than the exhortations which informed the Ministry’s release. In some parts of the world, said Mr Sparman, systems such as sprinklers are mandatory before a business can begin operations, but here we do it on a “goodwill basis.”
What is most unacceptable in the case of the Sharon’s Mall fire is that fire extinguishers were not immediately visible to tenants, even if they existed, although that has not been confirmed. In addition, incredibly there seems to have been no fire alarm. No building in this country, however small or large, which employs workers or where people gather should be without a fire alarm and extinguishers.
The Ministry did say that inspections for fire and safety compliance for buildings like the Mall were mandatory, so one has to ask whether in fact any such inspections were carried out there. One suspects that the law in this regard is mostly honoured in the breach. Mr Sparman, for example, did say that a building structure has to be sound for fire safety, but most times the Fire Service did not see the plans in order that safety recommendations could be made before completion. “[M]ost times it comes to us when the building is completed,” he said.
This is a question of enforcement of the law, which lies well within the Minister’s purview. No one should be allowed to get away with bypassing the law for the sake of cutting costs.
As for Minister Benn’s remarks related to the need for the Fire Service to become more familiar with the different types of building construction, that would seem to suggest there is a deficit in training. Before the next conflagration strikes us, the Minister should put his mind to changes in the law, enforcement of the law, the training of Fire Service personnel and the provision of adequate and up-to-date equipment. The GFS has been neglected for far too long, and it is ordinary citizens who are paying the price.
