1967 evidence into death of Chief Luthuli was a fabrication: locomotive expert

08 May 2025 - 19:48 By Mlungisi Mhlophe-Gumede
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
Locomotive expert Lesley Charles Labuschagne has disputed evidence by Stephanus Lategan who was driving the train that allegedly hit ANC president-general Chief Albert Luthuli.
Locomotive expert Lesley Charles Labuschagne has disputed evidence by Stephanus Lategan who was driving the train that allegedly hit ANC president-general Chief Albert Luthuli.
Image: Mlungisi Mhlophe-Gumede

The reopened inquest into the death of ANC president-general Chief Albert Luthuli heard on Thursday that the alleged scenarios surrounding his death were made up 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 a train that allegedly hit Luthuli, claimed that he was called to identify his body. Why would a train driver be called to identify the body?” asked Labuschagne.

He said it was completely unusual that a detective could 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, the train was no longer there,” he said.

Labuschagne said that if an accident occurs, relevant authorities are summoned to the scene immediately and pictures and measurements are taken . He said another piece of evidence that was contradictory was that Lategan said they were told by a station master that the person who was injured on the railway line was Luthuli, and 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 that 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 in Cape Town, it was windy but people still heard the train warning whistle. He said the train warning whistle was louder than a vuvuzela and a whistle used in a soccer match.

The inquest continues.

TimesLIVE


subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Speech Bubbles

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.