KEY POINTS
-
A reopened inquest into Chief Albert Luthuli’s 1967 death heard conflicting testimonies: a hospital clerk claimed no visible head injuries, while his daughter-in-law insists she saw a severe gash, reigniting doubts about the apartheid regime’s “accidental train strike” ruling.
-
State advocates questioned the clerk’s ability to observe potential injuries to the back of Luthuli’s head, as forensic experts highlighted discrepancies between typical train fatalities and the described lack of trauma.
-
The inquest, part of broader efforts to re-examine apartheid-era deaths, underscores lingering questions about political violence and historical accountability, with further testimony anticipated this week.
Nearly six decades after the mysterious death of anti-apartheid icon and Nobel Peace laureate Chief Albert Luthuli, conflicting accounts about his final hours dominated proceedings at the KwaZulu-Natal High Court on Tuesday.
Mahomed Manjoo, an outpatient clerk at the Stanger Provincial Hospital where Luthuli was admitted on July 21, 1967, testified that he observed “no bleeding or bruises on the front of the chief’s face or head” and “no blood on the trolley or his clothes.” His testimony directly contradicts claims by Luthuli’s daughter-in-law, Wilhelmina Luthuli, who insists she saw a “large gash” on his head during his hospitalization.
The inquest, reopened in 2023 amid calls to re-examine apartheid-era deaths, seeks to determine whether Luthuli’s death—officially ruled an accident by the apartheid regime—was, in fact, a deliberate act of political violence.
According to the EWN, the ANC has long disputed the 1967 finding that Luthuli was struck by a train near his home in Groutville, KwaZulu-Natal, citing inconsistencies in the original investigation.
Luthuli: Hospital clerk’s account challenges family’s version
Manjoo, who worked at the hospital for two years prior to Luthuli’s admission, described his role as assessing patients’ injuries to prioritize treatment. “His body was not covered,” he stated, emphasizing that Luthuli’s face and torso showed no signs of trauma. When pressed by State Advocate Annah Chuene about potential injuries to the back of Luthuli’s head, Manjoo conceded, “Correct—if he had sustained an injury at the back of his head, I would not have been able to see it at my vantage point.”
Wilhelmina Luthuli, however, maintains that her father-in-law had a severe head wound when she arrived at the hospital. Her testimony last week described “a deep cut, blood matted in his hair, and his clothes stained.” Forensic experts testifying earlier in the inquest noted that train-related fatalities typically result in catastrophic injuries, raising questions about the absence of such trauma in Manjoo’s account.
Historical context further complicates the case. Luthuli, who served as ANC president until his death, was under constant surveillance by apartheid security forces. Declassified documents from the 1990s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) revealed state efforts to discredit and isolate him, though no direct evidence of assassination was uncovered. The current inquest has subpoenaed former apartheid-era officials and reviewed archival records, including railway logs from the day of his death.
The hearing adjourned on Tuesday and will resume Wednesday, with further testimony expected from medical personnel who treated Luthuli. Advocates for the Luthuli family argue that forensic technology unavailable in 1967 could clarify inconsistencies, such as whether bloodstains described by Wilhelmina were overlooked or deliberately concealed.
