By Tobbius Chilembo Hamunkoyo, LLB
Africa-Press – Zambia. On Friday, the Pretoria High Court dismissed the Lungu family’s case against the Zambian government over the repatriation and burial of the late former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu aka ECL.
From my careful listening to the full oral submissions made on 4th August 2025, it became evident that the government’s victory was almost inevitable. Here’s why.
1. There was No dispute over repatriation. The most critical fact was that both parties, the Zambian government and the Lungu family, agreed on the repatriation of the former President’s remains. This meant the main relief sought by the family was already uncontested. It was observed that Judges repeatedly noted that there was no legal quarrel about bringing the body back to Zambia, rendering this part of the application effectively redundant.
2. Core issue outside South African jurisdiction;
The real point of disagreement was President Hakainde Hichilema’s participation in the funeral. When the judges asked if the court could make an order preventing the President of Zambia from being involved, the family’s lawyer admitted;
“No, and that’s why we get to the counter…”
That concession was decisive. It confirmed that the court could not grant the central wish of the family. Matters involving the role of a sitting president at a state funeral fall squarely within the sovereign rights of Zambia and are not matters the South African courts can decide.
3. Lack of enforceable legal grounds;
The court pressed the family’s lawyers for any binding legal instrument, such as a will, a signed agreement, or a court order from Zambia, proving that the late President had specified funeral conditions or a burial location. None was produced, this was a big flop on the Lungu’s family. The closest evidence offered were podcasts and public statements, which hold little legal weight in such proceedings. Without documentary proof, their claim lacked a legal foundation.
4. Evidence of political rather than legal dispute;
The judges drew attention to document EL19, a burial program prepared by the Zambian government, and questioned whether the resistance was driven more by political preference than by enforceable rights. This undermined the family’s claim further because courts cannot rule based on political sentiment.
5. Proper forum is Zambia, not South Africa
The bench made clear that even if disagreements persisted after the body was repatriated, the correct venue for resolving them would be the Zambian courts. This principle of proper forum is well-established in international law, disputes tied to a sovereign state’s internal ceremonial and constitutional matters must be handled within that state’s own legal system very important.
6. Government’s position aligned with law and protocol
The Zambian government’s stance , to repatriate the body and accord the late President a state funeral according to national protocols , aligned with international practice and Zambia’s constitutional powers. The court was not persuaded that there was anything unlawful or improper in this approach.
The Lungu family lost because of their primary concern, excluding the sitting President from the funeral, was outside the court’s jurisdiction, lacked legal documentation, and appeared to be a political preference rather than a legal right. The uncontested nature of the repatriation issue meant there was no real case to decide.
By upholding Zambia’s sovereign authority over its state ceremonies, the Pretoria High Court not only reinforced legal boundaries between nations but also brought this highly emotional dispute closer to closure.
Source: zambianobserver
For More News And Analysis About Zambia Follow Africa-Press
