KEY POINTS
-
W/O Sunette Nel claims that Chief Albert Luthuli was likely assaulted before his body was placed on railway tracks, questioning the official story of a train accident.
-
Nel criticized the train crew for removing the body from the scene, describing it as interference with a potential crime scene.
-
New evidence points to possible tampering, including the removal of blood from Luthuli’s body and defensive wounds that suggest assault rather than an accident.
The reopened inquest into the death of ANC president-general Chief Albert Luthuli at the Pietermaritzburg High Court has brought new allegations regarding the circumstances surrounding his demise.
A lead investigator, Warrant Officer (W/O) Sunette Nel, made startling claims during her testimony on Tuesday, calling into question the official narrative that Luthuli was struck by a train in 1967.
Nel argued that Luthuli had likely been assaulted before his body was placed on the railway track, and that the actions of the train driver and his crew may have interfered with a potential crime scene.
Sowetanlive reports that Luthuli’s family has long disputed the story of his death, which was officially ruled as an accident after he was allegedly hit by a train.
Nel’s assertions have reopened the investigation, suggesting that his death may not have been a tragic accident but rather a deliberate act of violence followed by an attempt to cover it up. She stated: “I suspect Luthuli was hit with a blunt object at the back of his head, and his body was carried to the railway line, where it was placed on the tracks to make it look like a train accident.”
Nel further criticized the train crew, specifically driver Stephanus Lategan and his staff, for removing Luthuli’s body from the railway track after they stopped the train. According to Nel, this action compromised the crime scene.
“I do not know what informed them to remove the body because what they did was interference with a crime scene,” Nel testified. Prosecutor Siyabonga Ngcobo questioned Nel about her views on why the crew would move the body, but she refrained from commenting on possible cover-up motives.
Alleged alteration of evidence
The investigator also indicated that there may have been an attempt to erase evidence. “The blood on Luthuli’s body might have been removed before he was taken to Stanger Hospital,” Nel explained, highlighting discrepancies between witness statements and the medical testimony presented at the inquest.
One witness from Stanger Hospital, Mohomed Manjoo, stated that he did not observe any blood on Luthuli when he arrived at the hospital, while other witnesses claimed to have seen a pool of blood at the scene.
Nel supported the idea that Luthuli’s injuries were inconsistent with a train accident, pointing out that his defensive wounds indicated that he had been assaulted. “When Luthuli was taken to the hospital, he still had both of his shoes, which is unusual for train or car accident victims, who usually lose one or both shoes on impact,” she said. Judge Nompumelelo Radebe acknowledged this observation, noting that it was widely believed that accident victims typically lose their shoes.
