subscribe Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Subscribe now
Locomotive expert Lesley Labuschagne has disputed evidence by Stephanus Lategan, who drove the train that allegedly hit Chief Albert Luthuli. Picture: MLUNGISI MHLOPE-GUMEDE
Locomotive expert Lesley Labuschagne has disputed evidence by Stephanus Lategan, who drove the train that allegedly hit Chief Albert Luthuli. Picture: MLUNGISI MHLOPE-GUMEDE

The reopened inquest into the death of ANC president-general Chief Albert Luthuli on Thursday heard the alleged scenarios surrounding his death were created to cover up his killing.

Locomotive expert Lesley Charles Labuschagne, who continued with his evidence, said evidence presented in the initial inquest into Luthuli’s death in 1967 was a fabrication.

“It is unusual for drivers to be called to identify bodies at mortuaries. However, Stephanus Lategan, who was driving the train that allegedly hit Luthuli, claimed he was called to identify his body. Why would a train driver be called to identify the body?” asked Labuschagne.

He said it was also unusual that a detective would visit a scene three days after the incident, adding by that time the scene could have changed.

“I am saying this because measurements cannot be 100% accurate, more especially in this case as the train was no longer there,” he said.

Labuschagne said if an accident occurs, relevant authorities are summoned to the scene immediately and pictures and measurements are taken.

He said another piece of evidence he found contradictory was that Lategan said they were told by a station master that the person injured on the railway line was Luthuli, yet in his other evidence he said he had heard on the radio news that the train victim was Luthuli.

“There are so many things that are not adding up, which suggests that the evidence presented earlier may have been made up,” said Labuschagne.

He said it was also unbelievable that Luthuli did not hear the train’s warning whistle.

“A steam train warning whistle is extremely loud, it is designed to make sure people can hear it when the train comes,” he said.

He disputed evidence presented in the initial inquest that Luthuli may not have heard the warning whistle because there was heavy wind on that day.

Labuschagne said in Mossel Bay, the Western Cape, it gets windy but people still hear the train warning whistle.

He said a train’s warning whistle was louder than a vuvuzela or a whistle used in a soccer match.

The inquest continues.

TimesLIVE

subscribe Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Subscribe now