If there is any truth to the claim of foul play in Chief Albert Luthuli’s death, the net must be cast wider to encompass even his comrades within the ANC.
It is well documented that by the time of his death, Luthuli had long been marginalised by those who had come to dominate the ANC. His sidelining began with the formation of uMkhonto weSizwe (MK), after which he was gradually excluded from the day-to-day operations of the organisation. The ANC Youth League — and others aligned with the Communist Party — steered the movement in a new direction, one that no longer recognised Luthuli as its true leader. And yet, among the ANC’s grassroots within South Africa, he remained a revered president. This contradiction posed a serious dilemma, especially for those who had committed to the armed struggle.
Let me play devil’s advocate for a moment and suggest it was actually in the ANC’s interest to have Luthuli moved out of the way. MK announced its presence with a series of bomb blasts targeting apartheid structures in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth and Durban — just days after Luthuli had returned from delivering his Nobel Peace Prize speech, in which he strongly emphasised non-violent resistance as the moral and strategic foundation of the African liberation struggle. He drew heavily from the traditions of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, aligning himself with the broader global movement for peaceful resistance against oppression.
At the time, the PAC was gaining significant momentum in South Africa and had emerged as a serious threat to the ANC. As Bernard Leeman observes, by the end of 1959, PAC membership had surpassed that of the ANC. The organisation had also established a military wing, Poqo — later widely known as APLA — and many young South Africans, increasingly convinced that armed struggle was the only path to liberation, were joining the PAC in large numbers.
For the new ANC leadership, it became crucial to reclaim the narrative and prove to the youth that the ANC, too, was committed to armed resistance. But how could they do this without openly fracturing the movement? What better way than to quietly remove Luthuli — a man firmly opposed to violent struggle — and attribute his death to the apartheid regime?
His death would not only eliminate the leadership dilemma but also serve as a powerful rallying point, fuelling public outrage, galvanising support and giving the new leadership a perceived mandate to embrace armed struggle. And with him gone, those who had spearheaded the formation of MK could seamlessly step into leadership — exactly what happened.
It is also worth noting that Luthuli’s assassination — if it was an assassination — occurred shortly before the launch of the failed Wankie Campaign, intended as MK’s most significant show of force: a campaign designed to rally Black South Africans behind the ANC’s armed resistance. Ironically, one of the detachments was called the ‘Luthuli Detachment’, named in honour of Luthuli, who had died earlier that month. The sequence of events leaves much to be desired.
Could it be that a faction within the ANC was responsible for Luthuli’s death?
Then again, it’s possible he was killed by the apartheid regime, as some in the ANC have claimed. But the motivation for such an act seems weak. By that time, Luthuli no longer held any real influence over the day-to-day operations of the ANC. It was those behind the formation of MK who posed the real threat to the regime.
What would they gain by killing a man who no longer held significant sway within the movement — a man who openly opposed the armed struggle? It seems unlikely that they would have viewed Luthuli as enough of a threat at the time to justify assassination — yet the unfolding inquest may still uncover a motive that shifts that calculation.
The bottom line is this: when foul play is suspected, anyone with a motive must be treated as a suspect, regardless of how close they were to the victim. Was it the apartheid regime? Was it the ANC?
* Don Lepati is a former university lecturer, author, and occasional contributor to political debates in South Africa.
For opinion and analysis consideration, email Opinions@timeslive.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.