Had Inkosi Albert Luthuli been hit by a train, he would have died on impact as his head would have been crushed beyond recognition, and his right arm would have been amputated from the shoulder. 

This was the testimony of an old-fashioned steam train expert, Lesley Labuschagne, on Wednesday at the ongoing inquest into the death of Nobel Peace Prize winner and ANC President-General, on July 21, 1967. 

Labuschagne’s testimony took an interesting step in proving that an initial inquest that was held shortly after Luthuli succumbed to death, soon after being brought to Stanger Hospital in a partially unconscious state, was marred by the fabrication of facts to protect his killers, who were believed to be working for the apartheid system. 

On several occasions during his day-long testimony,  Labuschagne told Judge Qondeni Radebe, who is presiding over the inquest, that the story that Luthuli was hit by the train was far-fetched.  

He said in his 28 years of experience working with the steam train, especially the 15CA Class, the same type of train that was said to have killed Luthuli, it was highly unlikely that Luthuli would have survived a second after the impact of a train that was running at a speed of 40 kilometres per hour.

He said with that speed, the train would have hit Luthuli and thrown him against steel on the side of the bridge, and those bridge steels would have thrown his back at the train. He said alternatively, the train would have thrown Luthuli over the bridge into the river.  

“The impact, 40km/h, the impact of the train hitting a person and throwing him to the bridge (steel), which also threw him back to the train. 

“The injuries sustained from that impact, the chief (Luthuli) couldn’t have died later in the day at the hospital,” he said.

He was disputing the evidence that was presented by the train driver Stephanus Lategan, conductor Pieter van Wyk, and the boilerman, who was also known as fireman Daniel Greyling, to the initial inquest. 

He said the fact that the train was only made up of steel, and the part that supposedly hit him was a sharp corner, he would have died on impact. 

The court had been told that after the incident, a station master was able to identify the victim as Luthuli. 

However, Labuschagne said this was impossible because Luthuli’s head would have been unidentifiable. After all, it would have been crushed while his upper body clothes would have been torn apart. 

He said in his knowledge, a person hit by that type of train, which was running at high speed, would have been collected from the accident scene by a mortuary vehicle, not an ambulance.   

“In my opinion, that impact never took place,” he said. 

The National Prosecuting Authority-led reopened inquest was established to find new evidence on Luthuli’s death after growing dissatisfaction with the findings of an inquest that was conducted the same year that he died. 

Labuschagne believed that Luthuli might have been assaulted and dragged to the railway line that crossed the Mvoti River to create a false story that he was hit by the train. 

According to a statement presented to the old inquest, Lategan saw “a Bantu (African) man.” walking on the walkway of the railway bridge towards the train. 

The man ignored the tremendous noise that was caused by the train on the steel bridge and also ignored the warning horn. 

“It was a couple of seconds before my (Lategan) train hit him, and I sounded the whistle to give him a warning.

“This bantu (African man) did not take notice of my train but just continued walking along the side of the bridge in the direction of my approaching locomotive,” read Lategan’s statement. 

Lategan said in the statement that the front part of the locomotive missed Luthuli by an inch before he was hit by the sharp cover steel near the first door on his right shoulder. 

Lategan said that, witnessing the impact, he saw Luthuli spinning around before falling and lying on the walkway of the bridge.

He then applied the brakes and stopped. 

When asked to comment on the statement, Labuschagne said Lategan told the same lies as those told by Greyling. 

“He (Greyling) said he must also have heard the tremendous noise that the train makes if it moves over the bridge and Lategan said he saw Luthuli ignoring the train that was moving towards him and he blew the whistle to warn Luthuli. 

“In my opinion, this was not true because Chief Luthuli was a learned, intelligent person and to hear and see. 

“Why would Chief Luthuli walk towards an oncoming train, ignoring the blowing whistle?” said Labuschagne.

He said it was also strange that after the matter had been reported to the station master, who then called the ambulance, Lategan moved the train and continued with his journey to Durban even before the ambulance and police arrived to do the necessary investigation. 

He said the fact that Lategan continued to drive the train instead of waiting for another driver to take over the journey was not normal and irresponsible because that placed the lives of the train occupants and other railway line users in danger.   

 bongani.hans@inl.co.za

Source link