FORMER president Edgar is entitled to a state funeral in Zambia, a High Court in Pretoria, South Africa has ruled.
https://www.facebook.com/share/12Bbu6fpP7f/?mibextid=wwXIfr
The court insists that Lungu remained a former president of Zambia even after his retirement benefits were withdrawn, a status which entitled him to a state funeral.
In an online judgment today, the court dismissed the application by Lungu’s family that sought permission to appeal an earlier ruling that allowed the Zambian government to repatriate his body for a state funeral and burial in Lusaka.
On 8 August 2025, the same court had already ruled in favour of the Zambian Government.
Unhappy with that decision, Lungu’s widow Esther, his children Tasila, Dalitso and Chiyeso, his relative Charles Phiri and Bertha, plus lawyer Makebi Zulu, asked the court for leave to appeal, insisting that as heirs they had exclusive rights to decide his burial.
The family also argued that because the dispute arose in South Africa, it should have been decided under South African law.
They attacked the court’s reliance on Zambian law, particularly the Kaunda case on state burials, saying it was wrongly applied since Lungu had been stripped of his former president’s benefits while alive.
But the three-judge bench, led by Acting Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba, rejected those arguments stating that the court was emphatic that Lungu’s removal from the retirement package did not erase his presidential status.
“The argument that the deceased was stripped of his benefits is of no moment. He remains a former state president with attendant burial benefits at state expense upon death,” wrote the judges.
The court also dismissed the suggestion that Zambian law was improperly applied, noting that the Attorney General of Zambia was qualified to guide the court on that law.
“The allegation that the respondent failed to place expert evidence of Zambian law before this Court is without merit, as the Attorney General is an expert in Zambian law,” the ruling stated.
The family had further argued that their constitutional and common law rights as heirs should outweigh the government’s claim over the remains of the former president.
But the judges said this case was too fact-specific to justify an appeal and did not raise any compelling constitutional questions.
“We are satisfied that no compelling reasons exist to grant leave to appeal simply because the matter is so fact specific that there is very little to no prospects that the same set of facts will confront a Court again,” the court said.
By Catherine Pule
Kalemba, September 16, 2025
