Steam train expert Lesley Labuschagne disputes that Inkosi Albert Luthuli was killed by a train.
Image: Bongani Hans Independent Media
Evidence from a 1967 inquest suggests that the driver of the steam train that allegedly killed Inkosi Albert Luthuli violated basic safety rules, which could have prevented the accident.
Such operational rules meant that the driver, Stephanus Lategan, should have blown the horn and slowed down the train on approaching the bridge where Luthuli was said to have been hit by the train.
Blowing the horn would have warned Luthuli, who was walking on the bridge, about the oncoming train, while the driver slowing down would have avoided the accident.
Continuing to give evidence at the reopened inquest into the death of Nobel Peace Prize winner at the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Thursday, steam train expert Lesley Labuschagne said it was cast-in-stone rules that when approaching a railway line bridge, a tunnel and a pedestrian or vehicle crossing, the driver should blow the hooter and slow down the train as precautionary measures.
It was suspected that Luthuli was killed by apartheid operatives, and the train accident was used as a cover-up.
“Had the driver blown the whistle before entering the bridge, in this particular case, Chief Albert Luthuli or any other pedestrian would have known that there was a train coming,” said Lesley Labuschagne.
He said the horn of the train was extremely loud to be heard at a far distance, and even worse when blown at an open river bridge because the sound cannot be inhibited by buildings or trees that could suppress the noise.
“The steam locomotive whistle is extremely loud,” said Labuschagne.
In the transcript of the 1967 inquest, it read: “Perhaps the reason why Chief Luthuli did not hear the whistle blow is because there was a strong wind blowing towards the west direction (to the opposite direction of Luthuli).”
Labuschagne dismissed the statement because “there is a steam locomotive operating on the coast in Mossel Bay and Cape Town, and when the offshore wind blows, no matter how strong it is, you can still hear the whistle.”
The reopened inquest also heard that it was suggested in the previous inquest that despite the hooter and the “extreme” vibration of the steel bridge caused by the train, Luthuli continued moving towards the direction of the oncoming train, which was running at the speed of more than 40 kilometers an hour, apparently to commit suicide.
Labuschagne also dismissed that suggestion, repeating that the injuries Luthuli sustained did not indicate that he had been hit by the train.
He repeated what he said on Wednesday, that had Luthuli been hit by the train, his body would have been completely damaged and dismembered as the train would have thrown him against the steel wall on the side of the bridge’s pedestrian walkway, which would have thrown him back against the train.
He said the train's steel wheels would have cut his body into pieces, and he would have died instantly instead of dying at Stanger Hospital hours after the accident - as was alleged.
He said alternatively, the train would have thrown Luthuli over the bridge into the river.
According to the old affidavit, after the train had stopped, Lategan and train fireman Daniel Greyling disembarked and went to Luthuli, who was lying on the walkway, and moved him to make him “lie comfortably”.
This happened before station master Andries Pretorius, who was informed about the accident by train conductor Pieter van Wyke, arrived at the accident scene from a nearby Gledhow station.
Labuschagne stated that what the two did was against the law, as train staff are not allowed to interfere with the accident scene
“The train crew is not authorised in any way to move the injured person or the body,” he said.
He said that while interfering with the scene, Lategan, who had 20 years of experience as a train driver, and Greyling left the train furnace unattended, which was against the law and dangerous. He said this was like leaving a bomb unattended.
On Wednesday, it was revealed that Pretorius allowed Lategan to continue driving the train to Durban despite Lategan having experienced trauma from hitting a person, instead of waiting for the investigation to be done on the accident scene on the day and finding an alternative driver to take over and continue with the journey.
Labuschagne said Pretorius decided to allow Lategan to continue with the train because the train had not hit anyone or a train accident that had happened.
On July 24, three days after the accident, Lategan accompanied Detective Sergeant Lewis to identify Luthuli’s body at Stanger Hospital mortuary, and they also went to the accident scene, where Lategan assisted Lewis with the investigation.
Labuschagne said it was unusual that the police would visit the accident scene three days after the accident.
“When this tragic accident takes place, the local authorities and railway authorities are summoned to the scene on the same day and at that time, all necessary measurements are taken and photographed.
“He (Lategan) pointed out an estimate of where the train had stopped.
“Three days later, the scene of an accident would have changed in a number of ways, and they could not have been 100% accurate, mostly because the train was no longer there. That is why he said approximately,” said Labuschagne.
The hearing will continue on Monday.
Cape Times
Related Topics: