Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-18

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you honourable Chairperson.   And within such a short space of time, you decided (a) that there was no time to call for Mr Geldenhuys' assistance and (b) given where the deceased eventually fell, is such a short distance that in that time, you didn't have alternatives, reasonable alternatives available to you except to shoot this child or this  young boy, young man?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Your Honour, it is so that I shot at this person, it is so that it happened very quickly, but this all happened in a fraction of a second.  Today, years afterwards it is very easy to think back about why and how, why did it all happen so quickly.  At that stage you never considered all these things.  This all happened within a fraction of a second.  That is why I am here today Your Honour.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Luff, I don't know whether I have heard correctly what you said, did you say you could have acted too quickly?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: No, I said it now, years afterwards, it would be easy to say I could have reacted too quickly, at that stage everything was in a state of confusion, everything happened so quickly.  On the one hand you are frightened that they would shoot at you, petrol bombs or stones were thrown at you, you never knew what chance he would take by running away.  Would I overtake him, there would be other dangers.  At that stage, I was a thick set person, I was much bigger than what I am today and I never knew whether I would be able to overtake that person.

ADV BOSMAN: I just wanted to make sure if I heard you correctly.

MS PATEL: Mr Luff, those circumstances that you have just highlighted now about the unrest at the time may well be so, but let us confine ourselves to this particular situation at that particular time.  It was you, Mr Geldenhuys and an injured boy, that is what we are dealing with here.  We are not dealing with 20 other people who are throwing stones at you or petrol bombs at you or a child who is even armed and you have stated in your application that the reason, part of your reason for killing him is that you wouldn't later be able to identify him should he get away.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: It is so.  The chances that I would be able to overtake him according to me, was not there.  If this person was able to get away, there were many bushes, he could just ran into the premises of the next house, and we won't be able to get hold of him, and the next street, two houses further on, if he ran in that direction, he would be able to get away.  I wouldn't have been able to get hold of him again.

MS PATEL: I put it to you Mr Luff, even on your allegation that the child had tried to run away, even on that which is not accepted, or which is not conceded, even on that, this child was injured, how far could he have gotten that your fears about not being able to locate him and arrest him, were reasonable?  He couldn't have gotten very far?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I am repeating, according to me I wouldn't have been able to overtake this person, I do not deny that he was wounded, but according to my observations, this person ran away.   I shot a shot in his direction where I heard him running, and unfortunately this shot fatally wounded him low down in his back.

ADV BOSMAN: Could you perhaps just enlighten us on the age of the deceased?

MS PATEL: Let me just confirm, I believe he was 17 at the time, I will just double check that age.   He was 17, he was in fact 17 at the time.   Mr Luff, are you ready?   Are you ready?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I am, yes.

MS PATEL: Okay.  Can you explain to us when you shot him, what was your intention?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: The reason why I fired this shot in his direction was to try to bring it under his attention that I was serious to arrest him, or to re-arrest him.

MS PATEL: So on your version for all intends and purposes, your motivation was to arrest?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is correct, yes.

MS PATEL: This is very simply an act of arresting a suspect that had gone according to you, horribly wrong?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Your Honour, yes, I wanted to arrest this person.

MS PATEL: So your political motivation, could you explain that to us again, in terms of this arrest that had gone wrong?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I don't understand your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you repeat that Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you honourable Chairperson.  The act of shooting the deceased, William, was in fact about an arrest that had gone wrong, now in terms of that, could you once again explain how that act related to your political motivation?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Your Honour, the charges against the deceased was one of public violence.   This was committed when they were throwing stones as the hall.  On the basis of that, it was according to me a political incident.

MS PATEL: ... Mr Luff, it wasn't necessary to kill William Dyasi in order to achieve those political objectives that you say you had, not so?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I never, never had the intent to kill this boy. My objective was to stop this person from fleeing so that I would be able to arrest him.

MS PATEL: Let me ask you Mr Luff, would it have made any difference whether the allegation against Mr Dyasi was that perhaps he was accused of being in a robbery and with that same allegation, the circumstances under which he was arrested, had then ensued, would you have acted the same?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Your Worship, I think I would have acted in the same way.

MS PATEL: I want to put it to you Mr Luff, that there was in fact no political motivation for the murder of this child, of William, that it was in fact even on your version, just an arrest that had gone wrong.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Your Honour, I deny that.   Right from the beginning I have told this person that I was going to arrest him for public violence.

MS PATEL: I put it to you further that you haven't made a full disclosure to this Committee?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I cannot hear.

MS PATEL: I put it to you that you haven't made a full disclosure to this Committee?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Your Honour, there is a God above me, and he knows that I have spoken the truth today.  I am not here to hide anything today.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, would you grant me a moment please?   Thank you honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel.  Mr Rheeder, do you have any re-examination?

MR RHEEDER: Thank you Mr Chairman.   There are one or two issues I would like to address.  Mr Luff, is it correct that if it was not for the political situation during 1985 specifically and also specifically the riots which occurred, you would have not been in that township at that stage?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is so Your Honour.

MR RHEEDER: Is it correct that you were a Constable in the police at that stage?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is correct, yes.

MR RHEEDER: Did you have any idea of the person you found in the little shack, did you have any idea regarding his political affiliation?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: No, I had no idea whatsoever.  All I know is that he was part of a group of people who were throwing stones at the hall.

MR RHEEDER: You also testified and said that you did not shoot at him with the intention to kill him.  At that stage when you fired the shot, did you see the deceased?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: No Your Honour, as I have testified I fired a shot in the direction of where I heard him running away.

MR RHEEDER: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RHEEDER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rheeder.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Luff, I remember that you testified that you were carrying two weapons?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is correct, I had my service pistol, that was a 9mm pistol and a shotgun.

ADV BOSMAN: The second instance when you fired the shot, which weapon did you use?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I used the shotgun.