Seven years after the Grand Mosque crane accident, which claimed the lives of 110 martyrs, injured 209 people, and caused material damage to the Grand Mosque building in Mecca, the trial sessions have returned to square one. Okaz has learned that the First Circuit of the Supreme Court decided to overturn all the rulings issued in the case of the Grand Mosque crane accident during the Grand Mosque expansion project, which occurred just before the Hajj season, specifically on Friday, November 27, 1436 AH.

The Supreme Court ordered that the case be reconsidered by a new judicial panel, and the defendants, the Court of Appeal, and the relevant authorities were notified of the decision.

Okaz sources reported that the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of the iron crane collapse included overturning the previous acquittal ruling issued by the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal a year ago, and it was decided to return the case to a judicial division to rule on it again by judges other than those who had previously considered it.

The sources confirmed that the court held a session attended by 10 of the defendants, while 3 others were absent, neither they nor their representatives attended the session. The court did not receive any information indicating the reason for their absence from the session, despite being notified of the date. The circuit decided to continue to consider the case in their absence.

Scrutiny with every negligent person

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the decision stated that, after the department studied the case, the investigations conducted therein, and the judgments issued therein, and after reviewing the attachments to the transaction, including correspondence to the representative of the Ministry of Finance requesting the removal of the crane due to the lack of need for it, and since it was not found that the defendant had provided evidence to prove permission for the crane to remain standing and erected by an explicit text from the project owner or the supervising consultant, and she based this on the interpretation of some sentences contained in the correspondence and on the subsequent silence, and since silence cannot be attributed to a statement, and since the prohibition was the last thing that was declared, the duty of following up and requesting permission falls on her.

Assuming permission was granted for the crane to remain, it was not sufficiently verified that it was permissible for its arm to remain raised and not be lowered, given that the incident occurred during the Hajj season and during the period designated for work to be stopped in order to protect pilgrims and Umrah performers and ensure their safety and security, and because the wind speed gauge installed in the crane stops (turns off) when not in use, and because the crane's instruction manual states that the arm must be lowered for safety reasons if the weather conditions are not clear, and that lowering the crane's arm requires sufficient time and suitable conditions.

Given that Islamic law mandates the utmost caution for the safety of pilgrims, considering their large numbers, the nature of the time, the extended period of inactivity during the Hajj season, the fluctuating weather conditions during that period, the gravity of the incident, its profound impact, and the resulting loss of life and property at the Sacred House, which is a sanctuary and a place of security for all, the Supreme Court clarified in its ruling on the appeal: “During the review of the case, it became clear that there was insufficient investigation into the existence of a warning regarding the weather conditions related to the incident, specifically wind direction and speed, the timing of this warning, and how it was communicated to the relevant parties, despite its importance and significant impact. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in its previous ruling, emphasized the necessity of thorough investigation and inquiry into all those found negligent in removing the crane and leaving it in place for a period exceeding its actual necessity in a location teeming with people, frequented by Muslims from all over the world, and during a major Hajj season. This includes all those who neglected to monitor the situation from all parties involved in the project, and the extent of this negligence's impact on the incident. If the responsibility of other individuals is established, they shall be dealt with in accordance with Article Nineteen of the Criminal Procedure Law. The resolution of this case depends on how the matter ends for others, due to the possibility of multiple grounds for criminal accountability. Since the absence of suspicion of transgression and intentional harm and injury to others does not necessarily entail lifting the accountability from the one who caused it through negligence, dereliction of duty, or carelessness.

Criminal accountability is not the same as a guarantee

The court added: “Because it is established in Sharia law that criminal accountability applies generally to perpetrators of criminal acts, whether direct or indirect, to the extent of the proven act committed by each of them, it cannot be argued that an indirect perpetrator cannot be held criminally liable, whether the direct perpetrator is present or absent, or that the indirect perpetrator cannot be held accountable. Criminal accountability is not like a guarantee due to the difference in the nature of responsibility between them. A legal entity is held criminally liable when an act is committed for its benefit and within the scope of its management. Furthermore, the charges against the remaining defendants do not depend on the existence of official reports for their establishment. Rather, the court must verify the charges against each of them based on the evidence and indications presented in the indictment. The judgment did not provide a detailed justification for this. Judgments must be justified comprehensively, covering all parts of the ruling, and must be detailed and explain the effort exerted by the judicial panel in research and careful consideration, in accordance with Article 181 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Since the case, as it stands, is not suitable for a ruling by the Supreme Court, the panel decided to overturn the judgment and return the case to the Court of Appeal in the Makkah region for a ruling.” It contains something new, unlike what one sees.

The first session was held after the ruling was overturned, and the public prosecutor was asked about his claim. He presented the public lawsuit in which he accused 13 individuals of negligence and dereliction of duty, which caused the collapse of a giant iron crane in the Grand Mosque in Mecca. The lawsuit indicated that among the most prominent observations was the failure to activate and follow safety systems in operational work. Moreover, the safety officials lacked the necessary experience to implement basic safety systems and know the responsibilities assigned to them, as the main contractor relied on its own internal safety standards and regulations, which are less than the minimum approved for safety.

Incompetent workers

The indictment stated that some of the crane operators, installers, and inspectors working on site lacked competence, and there were examples of workers certified to operate the cranes even though they were illiterate. No documented evidence was provided to the investigation team to prove the level of competence and training. The indictment accused the main contractor of suffering from a lack of certified competent workers for operation, loading, and handling due to the multiplicity of nationalities and languages ​​of the workers, the variation in their levels of competence, and the absence of a clear training and certification program for them.

The indictment revealed that a report by a specialized company highlighted several safety concerns in high-risk aspects related to lifting operations in the operator’s projects in Makkah, including the Mataf expansion project, and the failure to respond to the Ministry of Finance’s letters demanding the removal of the crane because it was not needed, in addition to the lack of an inspection license for the crane that fell, the lack of an Arabic-translated operating manual in the cabin of the crane that fell, and the failure to provide them with reports on weather conditions during operation.

The indictment confirmed that the crane operator did not provide specific information about the wind speed at which the cranes should be shut down, while the Meteorology and Environmental Protection Agency had issued its forecast in the days prior about the possibility of winds, but the necessary measures were not taken, indicating poor communication and follow-up by safety officials.

The report noted that the crane operator and safety officials were not provided with a weather forecast, which is essential for crane operation. Furthermore, the crane's operating manual was not present in the crane cabin. The report also pointed out that several accidents had occurred or nearly occurred in the months preceding the incident, yet no corrective action was taken on the ground, no lessons were learned, no warnings were issued, and no lessons were shared. Although the cranes in the circumambulation area are equipped with collision prevention systems, these systems were inexplicably out of service, and there were no plans to reactivate them. It was also found that many cranes of various types at the site were unused, some having been out of service for an extended period, which could lead to collisions.

A separate case for an accused who left the Kingdom

The indictment showed that no charges were brought against individuals affiliated with any entities, while a separate case was set up for one of the accused who left the Kingdom and did not return.

According to dozens of reports, interrogations, investigations and witnesses, the public prosecutor decided before the court that the crane belonging to the Saudi Bin Laden Group fell at 18:05 pm on Friday, 27/11/1436, while it was resting on a support base in the eastern courtyard of the Grand Mosque and was stopped at an angle of 87 degrees. The crane (the mesh arms) fell on the upper part of the Grand Mosque, while the main arm rested on the concrete railing supports, due to its exposure to downward winds at a speed of approximately 80 km/h, resulting in the death of 110 martyrs and the injury of 209 people with the injuries described in the attached medical reports and material damage to the building of the Grand Mosque in Mecca. The Bin Laden Group was charged with negligence and dereliction of duty, and with the failure of safety officials and project managers to take the necessary precautions in monitoring weather conditions according to the stages of alerts issued by the General Presidency of Meteorology and Environmental Protection, and to respond to them with precautionary measures that would ensure the safety of the site and its visitors, or reduce the risks and effects resulting from the incident while carrying out the construction work assigned to it in the expansion of the circumambulation area in the Holy Mosque of Mecca.

When the public prosecutor’s case was presented to the defendants, they decided to request a deadline to prepare their response. They also requested to be informed of the Supreme Court’s decision to review it and formulate their response to the case. The court granted the defendants an opportunity to submit separate responses to the charges.