GRACE CHAILE
LATE former President Edgar Lungu’s principled wish that his successor, President Hakainde Hichilema should not preside over his funeral and burial was because of the hypocrisy that he witnessed at late Edith Nawakwi’s funeral where she was accorded rites she did not believe in while alive, former First Lady Esther Lungu has submitted to the South African High Court.
And Ms Lungu and family have strongly opposed the Zambian government’s attempt to remove South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation from the law suit over the remains of the late President Edgar Lungu, arguing that the matter directly affects South Africa’s foreign policy and diplomatic obligations.
Mrs Lungu has submitted that during the late President Lungu’s time in South Africa, he was open and consistent in expressing his wish that upon death, the current President (Hichilema) should be nowhere near his funeral or body because that would only be hypocritical.
“These intentions were communicated on numerous occasions to me and other family members. His reasons were rooted, not only in the principled rejection of a ceremonial burial by a government that had tormented, persecuted and forsaken him in life,” Mrs Lungu told the South African High Court in her affidavit.
“It was specifically stated by late President Lungu to the 7th respondent in April/May of 2025 when he was already severely ill that he does not want the applicant, alternatively the current President (Hichilema) to preside over his burial proceedings in the event that he passed on, following the observation of how hypocritical the current President was at the funeral of Edith Nawakwi,” Ms Lungu submitted.
Ms Lungu said the former President had stated that it was immoral and disrespectful to subject a person to rites they did not believe in in their life time and their funeral, worse still superintend over a perceived enemy funeral as if they were spoils of war.
Ms Lungu has submitted in her affidavit that at this stage it is undesirable for the family of the late president to continue residing in Zambia on a permanent basis because of the hostility and oppressive behaviour of the applicant, alternatively the current President of Zambia.
“It is paramount to mention that former President Edgar Lungu travelled to South Africa in order to seek immediate medical treatment and to find personal refuge from the hostile political climate in Zambia.
“During this time, it became abundantly clear to former President Lungu that he could never return to his country of birth as he would not be able to get the necessary care there due to interference of President Hichilema and therefore wished to remain in South Africa,” Mrs Lungu said in her submissions.
She told the South African High Court that former President Lungu and herself with several of their children had discussed at length the need to alter their status in South Africa fearing the continued mistreatment at the hands of the applicant, alternatively the current Zambian President.
And according to court documents, Mrs Lungu has objected to the Zambian government’s amendment of its original application filed on July 4, 2025, in which it has attempted remove the South African Minister as the ninth respondent and deleting sections from the supporting affidavit.
Mrs Lungu has instead maintained that the South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation remained a crucial and necessary party in the proceedings, as the relief sought involved international protocol, diplomatic relations, and state-to-state engagement.
Ms Lungu revealed that she had formally informed South Africa’s government of the family’s decision to bury the late President Lungu in South Africa.
In response, South African authorities acknowledged and respected the family’s decision. A letter confirming this communication was attached to the court documents.
The family contended that any court order compelling the repatriation of a former head of State for a state funeral in another country would directly impact South Africa’s diplomatic standing and could not proceed without the involvement of the minister responsible for foreign affairs.
“The applicant’s attempt to unilaterally remove the Ninth Respondent from the proceedings is procedurally flawed, impermissible, and irregular,” the family stated in their court filing.
They argued that such a move amounted to a material non-joinder and risked compromising the integrity of the legal process.
The family submitted that neither the Zambian government nor any of the applicants had produced a valid will or legal authority showing that President Lungu had directed otherwise regarding his burial.
