Diplomatic tensions mount as Zambia and Lungu's family clash over burial in South Africa
Image: File
A diplomatic and legal impasse over the burial of former Zambian President Edgar Chagwa Lungu has sparked tensions between Lusaka and Pretoria, exposing deep political rifts and challenging cross-border legal norms.
On Wednesday, moments before a private burial ceremony was set to begin at Johannesburg's Cathedral of Christ the King, the High Court in Pretoria issued an emergency order halting the proceedings.
The decision followed a petition filed by Zambian Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha, who argued that Lungu, as a former head of state, must be accorded a full state funeral in Zambia. Lungu, 68, died earlier this month in South Africa while receiving treatment for an undisclosed illness.
His death has since triggered a bitter dispute between his family and the Zambian government led by President Hakainde Hichilema.
At the heart of the standoff is a fundamental disagreement: Lungu's family insists that one of his final wishes was to be buried privately, away from the political theatre of Lusaka, and without the involvement of his successor and long-time rival, Hichilema.
In contrast, the Zambian government maintains that, as a former president, Lungu must be buried on Zambian soil with full military honours — and with the current head of state presiding.
While the Zambian state prepared for a formal reception of Lungu's remains in Lusaka, complete with military honours and a public funeral, the family quietly made arrangements for a private burial in South Africa.
The Pretoria court's ruling has now placed the funeral in limbo, pending a full hearing scheduled for August 4. South African officials have found themselves caught in the middle of the high-stakes diplomatic and legal standoff.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) has declined to comment publicly but confirmed it is engaging both parties to ensure compliance with South African law.
'We recognise the sensitive nature of this matter,' a DIRCO spokesperson said. 'We are working closely with the Zambian authorities and the family to support a peaceful resolution.'
Zambian Foreign Affairs Minister Mulambo Haimbe addressed the issue during a live interview in South Africa, calling for cooler heads to prevail.
'This situation is regrettable,' Haimbe said. 'We must honour our former president with dignity, but also uphold the rule of law and the unity of our nation.'
Observers say the dispute is as much about legacy as it is about politics. Lungu and Hichilema's acrimonious relationship dates back years.
After losing the 2016 presidential election to Lungu, Hichilema was arrested and charged with treason — a move widely viewed as politically motivated. After defeating Lungu in the 2021 polls, Hichilema accused his predecessor of corruption and abuse of power, deepening their political enmity.
Lungu's body remains in South Africa, a symbol of unresolved wounds in Zambia's democratic journey.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
23 minutes ago
- The South African
David Mabuza's funeral details confirmed
Former Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa David Mabuza will be laid to rest on Saturday, 12 July. Mabuza passed away at a hospital in Sandton, Johannesburg on Thursday, 3 July, after experiencing respiratory problems. Speaking to journalists in Barberton, Mpumalanga, on Saturday, 5 July, the Mabuza family spokesperson Desmond Moela said Mabuza will be buried in his home province, Mpumalanga, although the final resting place has not yet been confirmed. Moela said the funeral will be arranged jointly between the family, government and his party the African National Congress (ANC). Condolences continue to pour in for Mabuza as various politicians have paid tribute to him, with others visiting his homes in Johannesburg and Barberton since his passing was announced. The South African previously reported that the 64-year-old also served as the Deputy President of the African National Congress (ANC) from December 2017 to December 2022, and also served as a member of Parliament from 2018 until his resignation in 2023. Before being appointed deputy president, 'DD' held several positions in government including: Premier of Mpumalanga from 2009 to 2018 Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for Agriculture and Land Administration from 2008 to 2009 in Mpumalanga MEC for Roads and Transport from 2007 to 2008 Member of the Mpumalanga Provincial Legislature from 2004 to 2007 Member of Parliament (MP) of the Republic of South Africa from 2001 to 2004 Mpumalanga MEC for Housing from 1999 to 2001 MEC for Education between 1994 and 1998 Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X, and Bluesky for the latest news.
The Citizen
6 hours ago
- The Citizen
Dirco slams old travel advisory about terrorism in South Africa
The International Relations Department (Dirco) has slammed an old UK travel advisory warning British nationals about terrorism. The International Relations Department (Dirco) has slammed an old UK travel advisory warning British nationals about terrorism in South Africa, saying it is a 'classic example of disinformation'. Posts on X have revived the terror warning in South Africa, which was first issued in 2022 and again in April 2024. Why now? It is unclear why the warning has erupted again. 'The advisory on the British government website adds that: 'The main threat is from individuals who may have been inspired by terrorist groups, including Daesh, and who may carry out 'lone actor' attacks. 'Attacks could be indiscriminate and could target public spaces and places visited by foreigners, such as: tourist sites, shopping centres, high-profile events or crowded places.' ALSO READ: US level 2 travel alert for SA 'nothing new', Presidency says Aged post International Relations Department spokesperson Chrispin Phiri told The Citizen that the warning is a regurgitation of a 2022 advisory post. 'It has come to our attention that a 2022 travel advisory concerning South Africa is currently being recycled and amplified by certain social media accounts. These accounts have a documented history of disseminating misleading information about our country. 'This tactic is a classic example of disinformation, where outdated or decontextualised information is deliberately presented as current to create a false narrative and cause undue concern. We urge the public and media to be highly critical of such content,' Phiri said. BREAKING: The UK has issued a "terror alert" for South Africa. Several ISIS terrorists are protected by the SA justice system. July 5, 2025 Verification Phiri has urged the public to verify information before amplifying it. 'To effectively counter these deliberate campaigns, we encourage everyone to always check the date of any information being shared. Is it recent and relevant? 'Verify the source's credibility. Does the account or platform have a track record of accuracy, or is it known for spreading biased or false information? Seek corroboration from official and reputable sources before accepting or sharing claims,' Phiri said. Seeing a 2022 travel advisory about South Africa being recycled by accounts known for disinformation. This is a classic tactic: taking old info and presenting it as current to mislead. Always #FactCheck: Check the date. Verify the source. Corroborate with official channels.… July 6, 2025 'SA vibrant' Phiri added that South Africa remains a 'vibrant, welcoming, and reputable destination for travellers'. 'These disinformation efforts aim to undermine our reputation and sow discord. We stand firm in our commitment to transparency and accurate information.' US warning Last month, the United States also issued a travel advisory for South Africa. The Presidency stated that it did not view the level 2 travel alert issued for South Africa by the US government as a matter of concern. Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said it's standard practice for the US to issue travel advisories for countries worldwide. 'With respect to South Africa, the travel alert, just lists the kinds of crimes that most South Africans, if not all South Africans, fall victim to or crimes that confront us as a country. There is nothing new there in that regard,' Magwenya said. ALSO READ: WATCH: Malema should apologise for 'Kill the Boer' chant — Trump advisor
IOL News
16 hours ago
- IOL News
GNU Chaos: Political elites betray SA
Joseph Mathunjwa, President of the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and leader of the Labour Party has filed an urgent High Court application against President Cyril Ramaphosa's National Dialogue initiative. Image: Simphiwe Mbokazi The Labour Party, founded with a worker-focused mandate, has launched a legal and political offensive against President Cyril Ramaphosa's National Dialogue initiative, branding it unconstitutional, fiscally reckless, and an attempt to sideline Parliament and the working class. The party, led by Joseph Mathunjwa, President of the Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union filed an urgent High Court application on June 18, seeking to interdict the process. The party, argued that the estimated R700 million to R800m cost of the dialogue was 'unjustifiable' amid the country's deepening socio-economic crises. However, their main interdict application which came before the court on Friday, was not heard. Instead, the court entertained interventions from several high-profile civil society foundations — including the Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, the Strategic Dialogue Group, and the Thabo Mbeki, Steve Biko, and Albert Luthuli Foundations. 'South Africa doesn't need another elite summit behind closed doors,' said Labour Party's acting Secretary-General Lindi Mkhumbane. 'We already have Parliament, Nedlac, and civil society platforms. What we don't have is political will from the ruling elite to act on the people's demands.' The Labour Party's court papers demand: - A declaratory order that the National Dialogue is unconstitutional and irrational. - An interdict blocking public funds for the process, including payments to the appointed 'Eminent Persons Group.' - A review of all executive decisions initiating the Dialogue. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The case has become a flashpoint between the Labour Party and a coalition of prominent civil society groups aligned with the state. On June 30, the aforementioned foundations were granted leave to intervene, defending the Dialogue. Mathunjwa said: 'These are not bystanders. These are political actors with deep ties to the post-apartheid ruling class. Their role isn't to unite the nation, it's to preserve an elite consensus forged behind closed doors.' He accused the foundations of betraying the legacies of the leaders they represent: 'The same communities (these leaders) stood for are ravaged by gender-based violence, unemployment, and poverty. Now these elites want a 'dialogue' instead of action.' Mathunjwa also criticised the procedural manoeuvring surrounding the case, particularly the fact that the foundations submitted answering affidavits before being granted leave to intervene — a step he described as 'arrogance, plain and simple'. The Labour Party claims the Dialogue is a smokescreen for International Monetary Fund(IMF)-driven austerity policies, including Eskom privatisation and neoliberal reforms. 'This is a rubber stamp for IMF instructions, nothing more,' Mathunjwa said. 'If Parliament is functional, why create a new platform? This isn't inclusion, it's circumvention.' The state's delayed filing of its answering papers — missing key deadlines — has further fuelled suspicions of procedural stalling. 'They missed the deadline, and now they're bringing in reinforcements to stall,' Mathunjwa said. 'The President cannot wake up and decide to allocate R800m without parliamentary scrutiny,' Mkhumbane argued. 'This is executive overreach masquerading as participation.' As the legal showdown looms, the Labour Party has called on ordinary South Africans to reject what it calls a 'PR stunt' designed to distract from worsening conditions across the country. 'Rape, violence, and poverty don't need a dialogue, they need action,' Mathunjwa declared. 'We're ready to meet them in court.' Political analyst and author Nicholas Woode-Smith delivered a scathing critique of Ramaphosa's National Dialogue, calling it a 'vanity project' designed more to distract South Africans than to solve the country's deepening crises. Woode-Smith, managing editor of *The Rational Standard* and a senior associate at the Free Market Foundation, argues that the event — budgeted at R700 million — was emblematic of Ramaphosa's leadership style. 'This is not going to be some miraculous meeting of the minds where all of South Africa's many issues are solved,' Woode-Smith said. 'On the contrary, Ramaphosa has set up the entire indaba to distract South Africans from the fact that he is completely underequipped to be our president.' He added: 'This entire affair could have been an email.' According to Woode-Smith, the high cost of the summit reflects its true nature — a political exercise in self-aggrandisement rather than a genuine attempt at national healing or problem-solving. 'The initial cost of R700m is just a testament to the fact that this entire event is a vanity project,' he stated. 'Ramaphosa is even taking advantage of condemnations of the quoted bill to try to act like he cares about cost-cutting. If he truly cared about saving money, he'd privatise Transnet and Eskom and stop bailing out the Post Office and SAA.' He continued: 'The fact that even a cent of taxpayer money is being spent on Ramaphosa's little pow-wow is unacceptable.' Woode-Smith questioned the very purpose of the National Dialogue, pointing out that there is no clear objective or roadmap for how it will lead to tangible change. 'It is also unclear what this National Dialogue aims to accomplish,' he said. 'Even if Ramaphosa hears contrary views, they will go ignored. The ANC has a history of not working with its partners. Why should we expect Ramaphosa to respect challenges to ANC policy in a National Dialogue when his party runs roughshod over his coalition partners in the Government of National Unity (GNU)?'. 'It is also unclear what this National Dialogue aims to accomplish,' he said. 'Even if Ramaphosa hears contrary views, they will go ignored. The ANC has a history of not working with its partners. Why should we expect Ramaphosa to respect challenges to ANC policy in a National Dialogue when his party runs roughshod over his coalition partners in the Government of National Unity (GNU)?' He pointed to recent actions by the president as evidence of the ANC's inability to share power responsibly. 'The ANC does not know how to share power,' Woode-Smith asserted. 'At every turn, it has ignored the fact that it is a partner in government, and not a dictator. Ramaphosa firing the Democratic Alliance (DA) Minister Andrew Whitfield is just the most recent example. And no, his excuse is not sufficient. He is not a dictator who can unilaterally kick out ministers.' He further said: 'He is a partner in a coalition government who should be in constant dialogue with the other parties. He should try that dialogue before making it national.' The analyst also criticised the ruling party's legislative agenda, particularly the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill and expropriation without compensation, which he says were pushed through without meaningful consultation. 'Pushing through BELA and expropriation without compensation, while refusing to countenance any dissent are just the cherries on top of the farce that is pluralism in the GNU,' he said. Woode-Smith also took aim at the composition of the so-called 'Eminent Persons Group,' tasked with facilitating the dialogue. 'Meant to represent South Africa as leaders that reflect 'the great diversity of our nation,' this group is nowhere close to reflecting the true, political diversity of this country,' he argued. He noted that the list includes 'a few business leaders, trade unionists, religious leaders, researchers and politicians. But mostly just celebrities. Actors, writers, sportsmen, models.' He asked: 'Is this supposed to be a serious discussion to establish a way forward for our crumbling society, or a festival of shiny faces and shallow vibes?' 'There are no drastic alternative views to Ramaphosa's dogma present in the list,' Woode-Smith said. 'Only Lindiwe Mazibuko was a member of the opposition, and her departure from the DA was not cordial.' He concluded: 'Ramaphosa has crafted a list of yes-men, with some token business leaders who are likely to be too afraid to rock the boat to be too outspoken. This is not the guest list of a dialogue. It's that of an echo chamber.' In Woode-Smith's view, a real national dialogue would involve voices across the ideological spectrum — including those who strongly oppose the ANC's policies. 'A true national dialogue, with the aim of patching South Africa's rifts and working towards solving our problems needs to include parties from all sides of the spectrum,' he said. 'Most importantly, Ramaphosa's enemies; he should have invited Ernst Roets. He should have invited Kallie Kriel.' Meanwhile, former president Thabo Mbeki in a strongly worded open letter to DA leader John Steenhuisen who threatened to boycott the National Dialogue in retaliation to Whitfield being fired from his position as Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition.
