Amnesty Hearings — Cape Town — 1999-10-18

ADV BOSMAN: Did you have any reason for that choice?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes, normally I used the shotgun or rather I preferred it above the service pistol, because it could not shoot so far and the penetration was only an eighth of a 9mm pistol.  The result would be that I could have shot right through a house with a 9mm pistol and it reaches very, very much further than that of a shotgun.

ADV BOSMAN: Is it not so that a shotgun's bullets spread further wide?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: No, but it does not so shoot as strongly as a 9mm pistol.   I did not think about using my service pistol.  Had I used my service pistol, I could have shot somebody kilometres from there and the shotgun maximally had the reach of 70 metres.

ADV BOSMAN: I am not trying to catch you out.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: But this is why I am telling you, that is why I used the shotgun, because it was - it did not have such a far range as the service pistol.

ADV BOSMAN: I just want an honest answer from you, whether the fact that the shotgun, that it spreads, just give me a minute, the fact that the shotgun spreads, mean that it was easier to hit somebody, do you want to say yes or no?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: It is so, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: I just wanted to establish if you considered that?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: As I have testified that was a split second decision and the shotgun was in my hand, the service pistol was still in the holster.

ADV BOSMAN: So that whole evening while you were busy, you were carrying the shotgun?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is correct, yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: The shotgun had SSG cartridges?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it not the most fatal cartridges that you could use?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That is so, yes.  As I have testified we were in a dangerous situation and because of that, the tendency was that you use SSG cartridges when you wanted to defend yourself or defend premises.  I first loaded SSG because I wanted to protect myself in the first instance.  The shotgun we used when we had to control crowds, and in big riots, first you would use the shotgun and then SSG.  In this case we used SSG cartridges for self-protection.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that it was known to you that if you used SSG bullets, the chances were good that should somebody be hit, that would be fatal?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: The range or the power of SSG and a shotgun was the same at a short distance, but SSG spreads further than the others.   There is not a difference in the penetration of the two.

CHAIRPERSON: You say it is bigger pieces, therefore it is more dangerous for somebody's life?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And if I understand correctly, the police used SSG in the most serious situations.

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: That was for self-defence, that is why I had SSG in the shotgun, because my life was in danger and people were shooting, throwing stones at us.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever consider it to shoot a warning shot?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: There was no time for that at all.  A warning shot, I never considered that, there was no time for that.

CHAIRPERSON: So you never thought about a warning shot?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Thinking back at that, if I had shot a warning shot, I could have hit one of the other houses.  I never thought about that.

CHAIRPERSON: You shot to hit?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: No, I testified that I shot in the direction where this boy was running away.

CHAIRPERSON: You tried to hit him?

MICHAEL PHILIP LUFF: Yes, my intent was not to kill him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rheeder, do you have any other questions, follow up questions?  Mr Luff, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rheeder, do you have any other witnesses?

MR RHEEDER: Mr Chairman ...

CHAIRPERSON: Just switch on your microphone.

MR RHEEDER: Sorry.  Mr honourable Chairperson, if I can maybe request a short adjournment, I would like to consult with my learned colleague, Ms Patel regarding the proceedings.  I don't foresee that we are going to call any further witnesses, I just want to ask her if she is going to call witnesses and what the position is.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for a short while and you will indicate when you are ready to proceed.   Yes, we are adjourned.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Rheeder?

MR RHEEDER: Mr honourable Chairperson, I have discussed the matter with my learned colleague and the indication at this stage is that Mr Dyasi, the father of the deceased would like to testify and say something.  We are trying to curb unnecessary witnesses and evidence which we don't think will be necessary for the proceedings, so we have agreed that he will testify, we will see how it goes and that might be the last witness in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have noted that.  Ms Patel, that would be your witness, would it be?

MS PATEL: That is correct honourable Chairperson.  Okay, Mr Dyasi will testify in Xhosa.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rheeder, so subject to what you have said, at this point your client's case would be closed, subject to possibly whatever happens here, you might consider further action?

MR RHEEDER: That is correct honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But for the moment your client's case is closed, that is your client's case?

MR RHEEDER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, we understand.  Thank you Mr
Rheeder.  Ms Patel, do you want to call Mr Dyasi?

MS PATEL: That is correct honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.  Mr Dyasi, can you hear the interpretation on your headset?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: Yes, I can, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Won't you just switch on your microphone and then stand.   Give your full names for the record please?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: Stephans Metle Dyasi.

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.  Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Thank you honourable Chairperson.  Mr Dyasi, it is correct that you are the father of the deceased William Dyasi, not so?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: Yes, that is correct.

MS PATEL: Can you tell us, your son, what was he doing at the time when he was killed, was he a student, was he working?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: My son was working at the time.  He had impregnated a girl, that is why he had to go and work, so that he could be able to support the child.

MS PATEL: Okay.  Was he living in your home at the time when he was killed?  Was he staying with you?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: Yes, that is correct.

MS PATEL: The evening of the 3rd of November 1985, you sent your son out that evening, is that correct?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: Yes, that is correct.

MS PATEL: Can you please tell the honourable Committee why you sent him out, for what purpose?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: I sent him to go and look for my daughter in some house because it was getting late and my daughter was not yet home at the time, so I wanted him to go and look for her.

MS PATEL: Okay, and some time after you sent him out, you received information that he was shot, not so?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: Yes, I was told that he was shot.

MS PATEL: Can you tell us how it came about that you got this information?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: When I got this message, I was in the house with my wife, the neighbour came to tell us that he or she received a call from Tusa to tell me that my son was shot.  He was in some shack at the back of a certain house there.

MS PATEL: Okay, you say received a call from Tusa, do you mean someone in Tusa Lane?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: A person from Tusa Lane called my neighbour because my neighbour had a phone.  My neighbour is the one who came to tell me about the message.

MS PATEL: Okay.  After you received the phone call, you proceeded to the house where your son was, not so?

STEPHANS METLE DYASI: Yes, that is correct.

MS PATEL: Can you tell us what happened when you got to the house, in your own words.