Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-18

MS PATEL: There was a curfew in the area at the time?  Do you need an explanation?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: No, I cannot remember that.  It might have been, but I cannot specifically recall that.

MS PATEL: All right, my instructions are that there was a curfew at the time and that people were meant to be in their homes by a specific hour.  Mrs Hardy says that William Dyasi had come into the house, basically knocked the door open.  The door was unlocked, but he had knocked the door open and fallen on the ground in her place and that he was badly injured and that he lay on the floor for a long time, because he was in so much pain.  She says that they were afraid, she was in the house with a companion, a female companion, they were afraid and didn't know what to do and didn't go out because of the curfew also at the time and so they stayed in the house with Mr Dyasi, William Dyasi.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I really cannot comment on what Mrs Hardy did, but it is possible.  It is possible that there was a curfew in operation at the time, but I cannot recall that.

MS PATEL: Okay.  You state also that you looked either through the window or the door, you cannot recall which when you noticed Mr Dyasi on the floor?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Now my instructions in that regard is that it couldn't have been the door and it couldn't have been the window either, because the window is not on that side of the house where Mr Dyasi was laying on the floor, and in fact the curtains to her place, were drawn.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I cannot recall specifically whether it was the window or the door, I know it was either the window or the door.  I saw a candle, a lit candle on the floor next to the person.

MS PATEL: Honourable Chairperson, may I just take instructions for a moment, thank you.   Thank you honourable Chairperson, sorry Mr Luff, did you say that the candle was under the table or did you say that the candle was next to the boy?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: The candle as far as I was concerned, was standing on the floor, next to the person.

MS PATEL: Now, I accept that the home of Mrs Hardy is a fairly small place, nevertheless Mrs Hardy says that the candle was under a table, it wasn't next to, it wasn't specifically next to the boy, but the table was quite close to where the boy was laying.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Then I am not understanding this properly, Ms Patel says the candle was on the ground under the table, which was close to the boy?  I cannot remember the table, but I can recall seeing a candle, a burning candle on the floor.

MS PATEL: Okay, I won't take that point much further.   Sorry honourable Chairperson, a moment please.   Okay, sorry Mr Luff, you stated at some stage that what attracted you to that specific house was the light, was the candle, not so?  I recall reading that somewhere?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I cannot recall saying that.

MS PATEL: Mrs Hardy says if you are standing outside, that the light is very dim and because it is under the table also, more so, that it is very dim and you cannot really see it from outside, what is your comment?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: As I have testified, the door was slightly ajar and I saw the candle light through the door that was ajar.

MS PATEL: Now earlier on you stated that you were not sure whether it was the door or the window that you looked into, now you are saying that the door was ajar?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes, that is true, but whatever it was that I looked through, I saw the candle, whether it was the door or the window.  I saw that the candle was lit and that the person was laying on the floor and he was wearing this light coloured shirt.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the door slightly ajar?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: This opening through which I looked, was slightly open or ajar and I am convinced that it was the door, but I cannot say with certainty whether it was the door or the window.  I am pretty certain that it was the door.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is either the door or the window?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes.  The door or the open was slightly open and it was through this (indistinct) that I saw the candle.

MS PATEL: Thank you honourable Chairperson.  If I may just refer you to page 9 of the Bundle, paragraph 14, it is about five, six lines, about five lines down.   You say
"	... behind one of the houses, there was a corrugated shack in which a light was burning.  I approached the shack."
	The inference is that you saw the light and then you were attracted to the place?  Mrs Hardy says to me that that light is under the table, it is so dim that it would never have attracted you, and besides that, the curtains were drawn, the door was closed?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: If it is very dark outside, and even  a match is struck, that will draw somebody's attention to the fact that there is some light in the room.   And it was very definitely dark that night, outside.

MS PATEL: All right.  If I can just backtrack and take you to the point where Mr Dyasi came and found his son on the floor.  Both Mr Dyasi and Mrs Hardy concur that William was on the floor, he wasn't laying on a mattress and they both say that he was in severe pain.  In fact Mr Dyasi states that when he got to his son, he tried to lift him up so that he could go and get help, but he couldn't because the child was in so much pain and he couldn't lift him up himself and it is on that basis that he then went to look for help and he first went to the pastor who couldn't assist him and then they went to the police station in all innocence to look for help.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I cannot comment on what the father did, it is true that the deceased must have been suffering pain since he had been shot earlier that night.  Any wound, gunshot wound will be accompanied by pain.

MS PATEL: He states that, he states further that it is in fact after he had reported to the police where his son was and the circumstances under which his son was there, that they then after that, while he was still at the police station, that they then heard the gunshot go off, that had killed his son.  It was only after they went to the police station to inform the police where his son was, that the son was thereafter killed and you say to us that it is then per chance that you managed to look through this either window or open door, and the circumstances that followed according to you, ensued?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I was nowhere near the charge office or the police station and I don't know whether the father actually went there.

MS PATEL: Did you have radio control with the police station at the time?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes, we were in radio contact.

MS PATEL: All right.   Can you - the condition in which you found Mr Dyasi, you stated that he was only lightly injured, that he was able to walk.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: As I testified, according to me the person had been wounded and there was visible blood on his right shoulder, blood had already congealed at that stage and according to my observation the person was not in any critical danger at that stage.

MS PATEL: Mr Dyasi states to me that besides the incredible pain that his son was in at the time, that there was also blood coming from his mouth?  That he definitely could not walk?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: According to my observation, there was no blood visible at the deceased's mouth.

MS PATEL: And yet ...

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: In any event, not at the stage when he was laying in the house, I simply did not observe that.

MS PATEL: Do you say he was fit enough to put his own shoes on and walk out with you?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: He struggled to put on his shoes, but he did, he did actually put on his own shoes.

MS PATEL: How long did it take him to put on his own shoes, Mr Luff?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: I cannot say, it was too long ago.

MS PATEL: What was Mr Geldenhuys doing at the time?