Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-18

MR RHEEDER: Thank you Mr Luff.    If the Chairperson would just allow me to ask a couple of questions in clarification.  Mr Luff, in your statement and in your evidence you mentioned your service, your seconded service in Worcester, what does this secondment actually mean?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is when one is asked to go to neighbouring police stations or areas to assist there, because they don't have the necessary manpower to control certain incidents, and then we are seconded to those areas where we are needed.

MR RHEEDER: In 1985 you were stationed at Ceres, were there any problems in Ceres at that stage, any serious problems?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: At that stage there were no problems in Ceres.

MR RHEEDER: And you were specifically seconded to Worcester since Worcester was experiencing a lot of this type of problem and riots?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes.

MR RHEEDER: Before you went to Worcester, had you been seconded to any other place, where you had to deal with political unrest?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I was sent on secondment to Graaff-Reinet for about three and a half months.

MR RHEEDER: What were conditions there, what did you experience there?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Myself and some of the more senior members were taken by an officer in charge to do surveillance in this area where we were supposed to do duty, and when we entered the residential area the casspir vehicle in which we were being conveyed, came to a halt and all our, my colleagues cocked their weapons and told us that we would rather, we should do that as well, because things were going to turn ugly.   We entered the residential area and within half an hour, 14 petrol bombs had been lobbed at the vehicle.  The casspir was on fire, and several shots had been fired at the casspir as well as from the casspir into the crowd.   It was a very frightening experience for me, I realised that this was war in the true sense of that word.  I had not expected anything like this.

MR RHEEDER: And this took place within a residential area in Graaff-Reinet?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes, it was in one of the residential areas there.

MR RHEEDER: When was this approximately?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: It was earlier that year, it was June/July if I remember correctly.  I cannot remember a specific date.

MR RHEEDER: But it was 1985?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes, just before this incident.

MR RHEEDER: And then just to return to Zweletemba and Worcester, this specific evening on which the incident occurred, you testified and said that you and he was then Cons Geldenhuys, you were requested to attend the community hall where there was reported incidents of stone throwing.  Could you explain to us what this community hall was?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: It was a hall where the community came together to do certain things, whether it was for recreational purposes of sometimes it was used as a church, but it was State property.

MR RHEEDER: As a Uniform policeman at that stage in 1985 and then also specifically where you had been seconded to, Riot Control, what was your impression of the attitude of the people in these residential areas towards State property?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: In the first place they were not well disposed towards the police at all, and they wanted to burn down the property of the State, or they wanted to damage it in some way so that they could topple the then government.

MR RHEEDER: Is that how you experienced it?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes.

MR RHEEDER: You also referred to the judicial inquest which was held and certain bits of documentation have been annexed to this Bundle and which relates to the inquest, I would like to refer specifically to one document and that is the post-mortem report by Prof Knobel and that is on page 196 to 212.  Is it correct that Prof Knobel testified at the inquest?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes.

MR RHEEDER: And you were present during the inquest and during his evidence?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I was never inside the court, but I was just present at court.

MR RHEEDER: And you had read his post-mortem report?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes.

MR RHEEDER: Could you just tell the Court, his opinion as you understood it relating to the distance as to which the deceased had been away from you when you fired the shots?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Prof Knobel said in his report that it was definitely not a contact shot and that the deceased must have been some distance away from me, he agrees with me that it is possible that it could have been 20 paces, which is my contention.

MR RHEEDER: According to your knowledge, were any other witnesses present at the scene or in the vicinity who had witnessed the fatal shot and the surrounding events?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: No, I don't know of any other witnesses.

MR RHEEDER: And no other witnesses were called during the inquest?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: No.

MR RHEEDER: And then just generally, Mr Luff, when did you join the police?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: On the 2nd of February 1978.

MR RHEEDER: And when did you join the Detective Branch?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: During November 1990.

MR RHEEDER: So from 1978 to 1990 you were a member of the Uniform Branch?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is right.

MR RHEEDER: Mr Luff, just to return to the incident, you testified that the deceased Mr Dyasi, you took him by the left arm when you apprehended him in this corrugated shack, can you specifically remember how you had kept hold of him?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I cannot remember specifically where on his left arm I had grabbed hold of him, but I do recall that it was his left arm where I held him and that is how we left the house.

MR RHEEDER: Could you perhaps explain how it was possible for this person to break free from your grip?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I cannot tell the Court exactly how he had broken free, but before I knew what had happened, he had already scampered.

MR RHEEDER: That is all for now.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RHEEDER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rheeder.     Ms Patel, have you got any questions?

MS PATEL: I do, thank you honourable Chairperson.   Mr Luff, you state that you ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Luff, you can either listen to the questions in English directly if you prefer that, but you can also put on the headset so that you can listen to the interpretation into Afrikaans.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I will listen in English, and if I don't understand, I will ask for the question to be repeated.

MS PATEL: That is fine, thank you honourable Chairperson.  Mr Luff, you stated that you acted in accordance with your instructions at the time, is that correct?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Would you tell us what your specific instructions were from Lt Frost at the time?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: It was to suppress the riots and to prevent them damaging State property, and possibly to try and arrest some of the suspects.

MS PATEL: Sorry, is that all?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Okay, were you not also aware or informed at the time that the minimum amount of force was required to be used when you were carrying out these duties and thereafter you were supposed to act in accordance with the principles as set out in the Criminal Procedure Act?  That is in fact what Lt Frost testified at your inquest?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I cannot remember exactly what the word were that were used because at that stage, we had been busy for quite some time with riot matters.  I won't deny it, if Lt Frost did testify to that effect.

MS PATEL: You were aware though that the general tenure or the general manner in which you were supposed to carry out your duties, were in accordance with these instructions from Lt Frost, not so?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I was aware of what my powers were, but I would like to add that at that stage there was a state of emergency or that area was in a state of emergency.