New evidence challenges the narrative of Albert Luthuli's death

IOL News

06-05-2025

Inkosi Albert Luthuli's death on July 21, 1967, remain a mystery.
Image: Independent Media Archives
More contractions and inconsistencies came to light on what modern-day investigator Warrant Officer Brenden Burgess found about the death of Inkosi Albert Luthuli compared to what was revealed in 1967.
However, Burgess told the Pietermaritzburg High Court during the proceeding of the re-opened inquest that he could not conclude what led to the death of the Struggle stalwart.
Burgess, a police crime scene management analyst who studied forensic science at the University of South Africa, ruled out that Luthuli was killed after being hit by the train, which was the conclusion reached by an inquest conducted shortly after his death.
The train driver, Albertus Lategan, had in 1967 told the inquest that was presided over by Magistrate CI Bosswell at the Stanger Magistrate's Court that he saw an African man spinning after being hit by his goods train number 332.
He said that due to the shape of the train and the position in which Lategan was seated on the driver's seat, which was on the right-hand side, it would have made it impossible for Lategan to see Luthuli spinning.
'The possibility of the scenario occurring as described by Mr Lategan is highly unlikely,' said Burgess.
He said the spot at the Mvoti River railway bridge where the train stopped, did not reflect that the train had hit someone who was walking on the bridge's walkway, but it indicated that the train stopped after its driver had seen something lying on the railway line.
'The probability of the impact being on the southern side of the bridge was highly unlikely.'
Burgess, who started testifying before Judge Qondeni Radebe on Monday and concluded on Tuesday, said evidence given to Bosswell was inconsistent with what he established might have happened on the day of the incident.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Burgess, who reconstructed the evidence scene using other experts, told the court on Tuesday that his findings were different from those of the original investigators, including the train driver, ambulance driver, and doctors.
Burgess's evidence was too mathematical as it was dominated by detailed calculations of the speed, the size, length, and weight of the train, the length of the railway bridge that crossed Mvoti River, and the side of the bridge's walkway.
He said the locomotive of the train that was said to have hit Luthuli on the bridge was pulling seven tanks containing syrup and seven containers of sugar.
He said the train was no longer in existence as its parts were destroyed or recycled.
On the day, he said, the train had left a nearby station at 10.29am and reached the Mvoti bridge, where it was alleged to have hit Luthuli at 10.39am.
He also cast doubts on the evidence that was given by Doctor Mauritius Joubert, a neurosurgeon who examined Luthuli's body, saying his report had left out internal injuries.
'There are no detailed descriptions given by doctors as to the severity and nature of the sculp fracture and brain damage of Mr Luthuli.
'No detailed description of the internal examination seemed to have been undertaken by the doctors.'
Burgess said that when he conducted the reconstruction of the evidence collected after the incident, he established that Lategan had provided evidence that the train hit Luthuli on the right side of the shoulder.
He said Lategang stated that the deceased, who was unknown to him at the time of the impact, was struck on the right shoulder and also saw the 'African male spinning around'.
'There are inconsistencies noted from Mr Lategan's description and medical evidence.'
He said he conducted a thorough reconstruction of the accident using the help of the engineers proved that Lategan did not tell the truth about the train hitting Luthuli.
'The possibility of the accident scenario occurring as described by Mr Lategan, in my opinion, is highly unlikely,' Burgess said.
The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which is leading the inquest, believed that Luthuli might have sustained the fatal injuries after someone had struck him with a strong object such as a steel bar or a strong stick. It was also suspected that he had been placed on the spot where he was found after being attacked elsewhere, or someone might have met him on the bridge and tried to push him onto the train.
The NPA said it has a report from Dr S Nsele, a KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health forensic pathologist, which indicated that Luthuli's injuries on both arms indicated that he was trying to defend himself when he was being attacked.
Burgess read the report, which he received from the NPA on April 25, 2024, to the court.
'Dr S Nsele's report mentioned that the bruises on Luthuli's both hands and the fracture of the left elbow are indicative of the wounds sustained during the assault,' read the report.
When asked to comment on what is contained in the report, he could not conclude what happened because the past investigation was poorly recorded.
'The nature of the injuries sustained by Mr Luthuli was not well documented to come to any conclusion as to the course of the injuries sustained by Mr Albert Luthuli.
'Until such time further information is forthcoming, the probable cause of the injuries sustained by Mr Luthuli, in my mind, remains inconclusive,' said Burgess.
The matter is proceeding until May 16.
[e-mail]