Question NW2874 to the Minister of Justice and CorrectionalServices
06 January 2022 - NW2874
Hendricks, Mr MGE to ask the Minister of Justice and CorrectionalServices
(1) What prevents his department from reopening the inquests into the deaths of Imam Abdullah Haron, Chief Albert Luthuli and others that were killed by the security forces of the apartheid government; (2) Whether any progress has been made by his department with regard to the requests by the families of Imam Abdullah Haron and Chief Albert Luthuli to reopen the inquests into their deaths; if not, why not; if so, (3) What is the timeframe within which he envisages that the inquests will be reopened?
Reply:
The National Prosecuting Authority has updated me on the investigation into the deathsof the late Chief Albert Luthuli and Mr Imam Haron as indicated below:
(A)Investigation into the death of late Mr Imam Haron
(1) Investigation at this stage is incomplete. Section 17A (1) of the Inquests Act (as amended by Act 145 of 1992) formulates the procedure to be followed in respect of an inquest to be re-opened. Subsections (2) and (3) then set out how such re- opened inquest is to be conducted, as regards to inter alia, evidence is to be led,subpoena of witnesses, recording of findings.
It is therefore incumbent on the investigators and prosecutors to ensure that the quality of the evidence gathered is of such a nature that it is complete and admissible, in order for it to comply with the interests of justice by enabling the presiding officer to have a full and detailed picture from which to draw inferences.
To this end, because of the age of the records, documents and evidence tendered in the initial inquests such as these, many challenges are posed such as the passing-on of witnesses. There are rules of evidence which would guide that the best evidence rule is to be followed. As is clear from the political history, the preservation of official records and access to them also poses difficulties. Furthermore, in certain instances, documents that are intended to be admitted as evidence, had been declared as classified and this requires a process of declassification.
Moreover, the evidence tendered in the original inquest must be re-examined to test the veracity of the findings of same. To this end, very often objective expert opinion is required in an assessment of the evidence placed before the court conducting the initial inquest. Consequently, this would require that the more accurate information is is provided to such expert, the more reliable such expert’s findings. This is also to ensure that the process is in line with the interests of justice.
The aforementioned are all considerations that pose challenges preventing the re-opening of such inquests.
(2) There has been considerable progress in the last three (3) months in the Imam Haron matter regarding the requests of the family. The family of Imam Haron were involved in initiating the investigations into the material issues at play in this inquest.
Additional reports and statements were furnished.
Several engagements have been held with members of the concerned family, and we have committed to a clear line of communication with stakeholders and participants in order to facilitate this process. There are ongoing consultations with witnesses and an expert witness on the matter.
(3) The third question is always difficult to respond to satisfactorily, as much of what is to be done to achieve our goals is dependent on other stakeholders with their own administrative procedures and processes. A concerted effort is being made to expedite the investigation to enable an informed decision to be made.
(B)Investigation into the death of Chief Albert Luthuli
(1) A thorough investigation is still underway to place the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) in a position to make an informed decision. In respect of a section 17A re-opening, the Director of Public Prosecutions makes a recommendation to theMinister for the re-opening of an initial inquest, by a designated Judge, who is also empowered to take further evidence generally or in respect of any matter, in effect for the purposes of the reconsideration of the entire evidence including the existing record.
(2) Yes, extensive progress has been made. The family was consulted and witness statements were obtained. Moreover, for the past four (4) months, the prosecutors dealing with this matter have been waiting for the procurement of an expert to reconstruct the crime scene for the purposes of determining whether or not there are prospects of re-opening the inquest into the death of Chief Albert Luthuli. A three- phrase approach was proposed by the expert as follows:
(a) Phase One
Development of the crash Preliminary Engineering Analysis – the design and performance of the locomotive and the impact force associated with its contact with the head of the late Chief Luthuli.
(b) Phase Two
Applying the crash Preliminary Engineering Analysis – to develop a simulation model of the entire scenario in view of the locomotive design, the late Chief Luthuli andthree possible scenarios of the crash.
(c) Phase Three
Consultation between the prosecutor assigned to the matter and the expert witness for evidential material.
(3) The Directorate for Priority Crimes Investigation (DPCI) is in the process of canvassing the challenge of costs and experts. This is not an NPA process. Attaching a time frame is not conducive until all the evidence is placed before the prosecutor concerned.