logo
The death of a former Zambian president: diplomacy, grief and ubuntu

The death of a former Zambian president: diplomacy, grief and ubuntu

The Star5 days ago
Esther Lungu, former president Edgar Lungu's wife, is grappling with grief and unanswered questions after his death.
Image: Supplied
Sifiso Sonjica
The passing of a former head of state is invariably a profound and reflective moment for any nation. In Zambia, a country with a proud legacy of democratic governance, cultural reverence for elders and strong communal values, the death of a past president initiates a period of mourning, national reflection, and often, political reconciliation.
Yet, as evidenced by the complex and contested death and burial of former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu, such events also carry deep diplomatic, legal, and emotional implications. They unveil fault lines within the state, raise questions about family rights, and underscore the challenges of balancing state authority with the wishes of grieving relatives.
Importantly, these events remind us of the African philosophy of Ubuntu, which emphasizes our shared humanity and moral obligation to care for one another. In light of this, I found it worthwhile reflecting on the events surrounding Edgar Lungu's death and burial, the diplomatic entanglements that followed, the grief endured by his family, and the lessons that the African continent can draw through the lens of Ubuntu.
Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema. The Zambian government is trying to force the repatriation of former president Edgar Lungu's body.
Image: AFP
The death and the diplomacy around It
Lungu, who was Zambia's sixth president from 2015 until 2021, died on June 5, 2025, at a hospital in Pretoria. He was receiving treatment for a rare esophageal condition when complications from surgery resulted in his death. In response, the Zambian government declared a seven-day period of national mourning, which was later extended by an additional nine days. Flags were lowered to half-mast, and a state funeral was planned in Lusaka, in line with national customs and protocols for former presidents.
However, what was intended to be a respectful and unifying national homage quickly turned into a diplomatic dispute. A private family service was scheduled in Johannesburg, but the Pretoria High Court, acting on a request from the Zambian Attorney General, stopped the burial, asserting that Lungu, as a former head of state, was both legally and symbolically a representative of the Zambian nation and therefore deserved a state burial in his homeland.
South African officials, caught between honoring the family's wishes and maintaining diplomatic decorum, expressed regret over the situation while advocating for a solution that would respect the deceased's dignity. This unforeseen international legal conflict created a complex diplomatic challenge, turning what should have been a sacred and solemn event into a politically charged and widely publicised confrontation.
Zambian President Edgar Lungu.
Image: Rogan Ward/Reuters
Burial standoff: State versus family
At the heart of this controversy was a tense standoff between the Zambian government and the family of the deceased president. The authorities were adamant about bringing Lungu's remains back for interment at Embassy Park, the official burial site for national leaders in Lusaka, citing both national customs and constitutional precedent.
They maintained that a state funeral was not merely a formality but an essential expression of national identity and respect.
In contrast, Lungu's family asserted that he had specifically requested that President Hakainde Hichilema not attend his funeral, due to unresolved issues and allegations of persecution after his presidency. They also criticized the government's approach, arguing that the personal wishes of the deceased and the emotional needs of the family were being overshadowed by political symbolism.
On June 18, the family obstructed the repatriation of his body, alleging a violation of their agreement. The next day, President Hichilema declared the official end of national mourning, stating that it was no longer practical to indefinitely delay the funeral arrangements. Subsequently, on June 20, the family made the unprecedented choice to privately inter Lungu in South Africa, marking him as the first former Zambian president to be buried outside the nation.
However, on June 25, the High Court intervened once more, suspending the burial until a final decision on jurisdiction could be made on August 4. This ongoing standoff highlights a complex conflict involving national identity, personal legacy, family grief, and legal jurisdiction. It evolved into more than just a burial; it became a confrontation between constitutional formalities and deeply personal mourning.
Diplomatic undercurrents
This unusual incident has also put a strain on the diplomatic ties between Zambia and South Africa. The Minister of International Relations and Cooperation expressed support for the family's desires but remarked that a state funeral in Zambia would be "most appropriate" for someone of Lungu's stature. Pretoria's repeated legal interventions highlighted the complexities involved in hosting a former foreign head of state and emphasized the necessity of adhering to international norms and cross-border legal frameworks.
President Hichilema formally apologised to the South African government, describing the situation as "diplomatic embarrassment". His apology recognized that internal conflicts - stemming from Zambia's unresolved political tensions - had spilled over into the regional sphere, disrupting diplomatic decorum and potentially harming Zambia's reputation as a model for peaceful political transitions.
This situation highlights the urgent need for African nations to establis hprotocols that balance state responsibilities with the sensitivities of grieving families, particularly in cases involving prominent national figures whose legacies elicit mixed public reactions.
Family's pain and public grief
In the aftermath of his passing, the Lungu family has been engulfed in grief, exacerbated by public attention, legal challenges, and political unrest. They have faced intense media scrutiny, public discussions, and legal orders that have repeatedly interrupted their mourning. Most poignantly, reports have surfaced indicating that some family members have encountered travel bans and pressure from various political figures.
Makibi Zulu, a family representative, poignantly remarked, 'Perhaps this time, Edgar has refused to be laid to rest without the truth being revealed.' This sentiment captures the family's view that Lungu's death has become a disputed story, highlighting deeper issues within Zambia's political landscape.
Unverified claims of poisoning and systemic harassment have further politicised his death, complicating the family's quest for closure. As they navigate both personal loss and public controversy, the Lungu family's suffering underscores the challenge of disentangling the personal from the political in the life - and death - of a public figure. Their sorrow has become a symbol of a wider national discomfort, as citizens grapple with how to honour leadership in a time of divided memories.
Ubuntu and pathways to healing
The African concept of Ubuntu, often translated as 'I am because we are,' provides a vital framework for how such national moments can be approached with compassion, dignity, and unity.
Ubuntu calls for empathy, shared humanity, and communal responsibility - values that are indispensable in moments of grief and division. As such, African societies must prioritize empathy over politics when national figures pass. Grieving families deserve support and space to mourn. This principle applies regardless of one's political alignment or opinions of the deceased's legacy.
More so, the death or burial of a leader should not inflame tensions. Elders, traditional leaders, and mediators must facilitate respectful dialogue between state officials and families to avoid conflict and ensure dignity for all parties. This is important in balancing state honour with family customs.
Most importantly, I am of the view that African Union and SADC should consider formal protocols for cross-border funerals of former leaders to prevent similar disputes and ensure that such events foster unity rather than discord.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US to punish top ANC officials over foreign policy, graft allegations
US to punish top ANC officials over foreign policy, graft allegations

The Star

timean hour ago

  • The Star

US to punish top ANC officials over foreign policy, graft allegations

President Cyril Ramaphosa Former South African ambassador to US, Ebrahim Rasool. ANC first deputy secretary general Nomvula Mokonyane. South Africa's relationship with the United States is on a diplomatic knife-edge, as the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee push forward a bill that could see senior African National Congress (ANC) leaders hit with sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes. The proposed U.S. – South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 calls for a sweeping 120-day probe into Pretoria's foreign policy stance, targeting individuals accused of corruption or of acting against American interests. The looming sanctions have intensified diplomatic tensions, placing several senior ANC figures squarely in the crosshairs. President Cyril Ramaphosa, ANC National Chairperson Gwede Mantashe, former International Relations Minister Dr. Naledi Pandor, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General Nomvula Mokonyane, and former U.S. Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool have all been flagged as potential targets of the proposed U.S. action. The bill's advancement has triggered a political storm in Pretoria, with ANC leaders condemning it as an affront to South Africa's sovereignty and its right to pursue an independent foreign policy. Although the U.S. legislation stops short of naming individuals, growing pressure is falling squarely on President Ramaphosa and his cabinet, whose diplomatic choices have increasingly drawn fire from U.S. lawmakers. At the heart of the growing rift is South Africa's vocal and consistent defence of Palestine. Pretoria has become one of the strongest international voices condemning Israel's war on Palestinians, and this has not gone unnoticed in Washington. The South African government's move to initiate a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza was seen as a deliberate shift away from its previously neutral stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Alongside this, Pretoria's growing alignment with Russia, China, and Iran has further strained its relationship with the U.S., who view these ties as contradictory to American geopolitical interests. President Ramaphosa, who has steered South Africa's foreign policy in this direction, faces intense scrutiny. His administration's engagement with Russia and its stance on the Middle East has drawn sharp rebuke from U.S. lawmakers, who have accused South Africa of aligning with authoritarian regimes and undermining democratic values. U.S. diplomats have expressed frustration over Ramaphosa's outspoken criticism of U.S. policy, particularly on issues such as Israel and the war in Gaza. In June, IOL reported that President Ramaphosa released a cautious statement calling for dialogue and a peaceful resolution to rising geopolitical tensions. His remarks highlighted South Africa's sensitive diplomatic position, balancing its longstanding relationship with Iran and its vocal criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. 'President Cyril Ramaphosa and the South African government have noted with a great deal of anxiety the entry by the United States of America into the Israel-Iran war," the statement read. 'It was South Africa's sincerest hope that President Donald Trump would use his influence and that of the US government to prevail on the parties to pursue a dialogue path in resolving their issues of dispute. 'South Africa calls on the United States, Israel, and Iran to give the United Nations the opportunity and space to lead on the peaceful resolution of the matters of dispute, including the inspection and verification of Iran's status of uranium enrichment, as well as its broader nuclear capacity,' the statement reads. Gwede Mantashe, serving as both ANC National Chairperson and Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, is among those who could come under scrutiny. He was named in the Zondo Commission report, which linked him to alleged corrupt dealings with the now-defunct facilities company Bosasa. The report detailed claims that Mantashe received illicit security upgrades at his properties, allegations he has consistently denied, but which continue to cast a shadow over his political standing. Nomvula Mokonyane, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General and former Minister of Environmental Affairs, also appears to be in Washington's sights. Her alleged involvement in the Bosasa corruption scandal remains a point of concern, but it is her recent proposal to rename Sandton Drive, where the U.S. Consulate is located, to 'Leila Khaled Drive' that has drawn international attention. Khaled, a Palestinian militant associated with plane hijackings and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group designated as a terrorist organisation by the U.S., has made Mokonyane's comments especially controversial, sparking widespread outrage and potentially deepening the diplomatic rift. Then there is Dr. Naledi Pandor, South Africa's former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, who has emerged as a central figure in the foreign policy debate. Her vocal defence of South Africa's position on Israel, along with continued diplomatic engagement with Iran and Hamas, has made her a lightning rod for criticism. U.S. lawmakers have accused Pandor of steering South Africa toward increasingly adversarial alliances, arguing that her actions are undermining the country's longstanding relationship with the West. Ibrahim Rasool, former South African Ambassador to the United States, has also come under scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers. Known for his outspoken criticism of U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding the Middle East and Israel, Rasool has often been at odds with American diplomats. His influential role in shaping the ANC's foreign policy during the Obama administration is now being reexamined amid Washington's broader review of its diplomatic relationship with South Africa. The ANC's response has been one of defiance, with ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula condemning the bill as an 'attack on our sovereignty.' Mbalula has warned that the proposed sanctions are part of a broader U.S. effort to undermine South Africa's political independence and foreign policy decisions. "There is no justification for sanctions against our leaders simply for standing up for what we believe is right, especially on the issue of Palestine," Mbalula said in a statement. While the US sanctions bill may pass into law, it is far from certain that the Trump administration will take immediate action. Joel Pollak, a former senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, suggested that the sanctions would likely be targeted at individuals deemed to be responsible for actions that go against U.S. interests. 'The Magnitsky Act is about holding people accountable for undermining democracy and supporting corrupt practices. This is not an attempt to punish South Africa, but to target those who undermine key democratic norms,' Pollak said. As the U.S. Congress moves closer to passing the bill, South Africa faces a crossroads in its relationship with the United States. Should the sanctions go ahead, it will signal a significant shift in South Africa's international standing, particularly with the U.S., and potentially mark the beginning of a new phase in its foreign policy, where its support for Palestine and criticism of Western powers takes centre stage. The Star [email protected]

Under Watch: Pakistan's Journalists Struggle to Stay Afloat in a Sinking Democracy
Under Watch: Pakistan's Journalists Struggle to Stay Afloat in a Sinking Democracy

IOL News

time2 hours ago

  • IOL News

Under Watch: Pakistan's Journalists Struggle to Stay Afloat in a Sinking Democracy

While the South African media still enjoys constitutional protections and a relatively free press environment, Pakistan's journalists are battling to breathe amid a tightening noose drawn by military and intelligence institutions. Image: Supplied As South Africa continues its journey of democratic consolidation and media transformation, the situation in Pakistan serves as a chilling reminder of how press freedom can be slowly strangled under the guise of regulation and national security. While the South African media still enjoys constitutional protections and a relatively free press environment, Pakistan's journalists are battling to breathe amid a tightening noose drawn by military and intelligence institutions. A recent report titled ''Intimidation on All Fronts: Press Freedom and Media Safety in Pakistan'', released ahead of World Press Freedom Day 2025, paints a grim picture. Journalists in Pakistan face a growing array of threats: surveillance, legal intimidation, censorship, financial pressure, and in some cases, violent attacks. Despite constitutional guarantees, the freedom to report independently has become a high-risk act. Pakistan's history of media repression is not new. 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 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. Next Stay Close ✕ From the military regimes of Ayub Khan and Zia-ul-Haq to the more modern, media-savvy control strategies under Pervez Musharraf, the trend has remained the same — muzzle dissent and protect power. The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, formed in 2002, was meant to regulate broadcast media. But over time, it has morphed into a weapon used to punish outlets and journalists who challenge the state narrative. Recent developments have added digital spaces to the list of controlled domains. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, initially aimed at curbing cybercrime, has often been misused to target online journalists and civil society voices. Amendments passed this year have broadened the state's powers even further, allowing for arrests and censorship under vague definitions of 'offensive content.' During the 2024 general elections, media access was deliberately restricted. Entire regions, including the capital Islamabad, faced mobile and internet shutdowns, severely hampering election coverage. The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, then under the command of a retired general, enforced these blackouts on instructions from the Ministry of Interior. The timing raised serious concerns about transparency and the integrity of the electoral process. One of the most alarming proposals is the creation of the Pakistan Media Development Authority. Critics argue that it would function more as a state enforcer than a media watchdog, with powers to shut down outlets and prosecute journalists in special tribunals. Such bodies, in a democracy, would be unthinkable. But in Pakistan, they are becoming tools to silence critical reporting under a veil of legality. Economic pressure also plays a part. The government controls a large portion of advertising revenue, and this leverage is used to reward compliant media houses and starve those that refuse to toe the line. Newspapers like *Dawn* and *Daily Sahafat*, which have maintained editorial independence, have faced sharp revenue cuts, while pro-government platforms remain well-funded. But the financial and legal constraints pale in comparison to the physical dangers. Journalists are being harassed, abducted, or worse. In 2024 alone, seven journalists were killed. These included well-known names like Khalil Jibran and Saad Ahmed, whose deaths have not led to meaningful investigations or justice. The case of Arshad Sharif, shot dead in Kenya after fleeing threats in Pakistan, remains a haunting symbol of the lengths to which journalists must go to avoid repression, only to meet violence abroad. Women in the industry are also increasingly targeted. Javeria Siddique, the widow of Arshad Sharif and a journalist in her own right, has faced ongoing harassment both online and off. Such stories are no longer isolated incidents—they reflect a pattern. The Pakistan Press Foundation documented 34 cases of physical assaults, digital threats, or kidnapping in just the first half of 2025. Dozens of journalists have either been arrested or forced into exile. Even prominent figures like Imran Riaz Khan have been repeatedly detained for challenging state institutions, with little or no legal recourse. As South Africans, we should not look away. The experiences of Pakistani journalists should remind us that the freedom to write, question, and investigate must never be taken for granted. When military or political elites control narratives, societies lose not only their access to truth but also the accountability that keeps democracies a time where disinformation is rampant and authoritarian tactics are spreading across borders, the struggle of Pakistani journalists must be seen for what it is — a frontline battle for democracy. South Africa, with its hard-won media freedoms, must stand in solidarity with those who risk everything for the simple act of telling the truth.

COSATU urges unity as racial rhetoric threatens South Africa's AGOA trade benefits
COSATU urges unity as racial rhetoric threatens South Africa's AGOA trade benefits

The Star

time3 hours ago

  • The Star

COSATU urges unity as racial rhetoric threatens South Africa's AGOA trade benefits

Thabo Makwakwa | Published 2 days ago The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) has issued a strong call for organisations across the country to tone down on divisive and destructive rhetoric that fuels racial tensions. The organisation stressed the importance of unity as South Africa seeks to renew the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) with the United States. In a statement released on Friday, COSATU's parliamentary coordinator, Mathews Parks, highlighted the potential consequences of inflammatory discourse, warning that "the malicious decampaigning of South Africa in the US will come at a real cost to all South Africans, particularly Afrikaans farmers and workers." COSATU's call comes amid the US' annual review of AGOA member eligibility, a critical process determining whether South Africa and other nations will retain preferential trade benefits. Parks expressed the federation's support for renewing AGOA before its expiry at the end of September, highlighting its significance for South Africa's economy. 'AGOA has been an important stimulant for key jobs and revenue-rich sectors such as mining, agriculture, motor manufacturing, and more,' Parks said. 'It has facilitated trade and investment between the US and South Africa, with over 600 American companies invested here and 500,000 South African jobs linked to US trade. It's a framework that benefits both nations and the continent.' He further noted that South African vehicle exports, including components like steering racks from Tunisia and rubber from Côte d'Ivoire, demonstrate the interconnectedness of regional trade, which AGOA has helped to facilitate. Parks stated the importance of a mutually beneficial trade agreement, highlighting opportunities for expanding product inclusion, supporting emerging sectors, and strengthening cooperation on the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). COSATU expressed the positive reception of its proposals in Washington and lauded the solidarity shared with American labor movements, especially the AFL-CIO. The federation pledged to continue working closely with the South African government, business sectors, and US counterparts to deepen bilateral relations—while respecting sovereignty and promoting sustainable economic growth. 'Progress under President Cyril Ramaphosa's leadership to reset bilateral relations is encouraging,' Parks stated. 'However, it is vital that all parties support these efforts and refrain from inflammatory language that undermines social cohesion.' The federation strongly urged organisations such as AfriForum, NEASA, Sakeliga, and the Freedom Front Plus to prioritise national unity over partisan point-scoring. 'Whilst social media clicks may entertain friends over a braai, the malicious decampaigning of South Africa in the US will come at a real cost to all South Africans, in particular Afrikaans farmers and workers.' Parks stated that legitimate grievances should be addressed through constitutional and legal channels like Parliament, the judiciary, or law enforcement, rather than through rhetoric that incites racial divisions. 'Now is the time to shed narrow racial interests and place the nation's needs first,' he asserted. 'Partisanship has its place during elections, but the current climate demands maturity and responsibility from all stakeholders. Meanwhile, In a letter dated February 11, 2025 Republican congressmen Andrew Ogles, Tom Tiffany, Joe Wilson and Don Bacon asked President Donald Trump to revoke South Africa's access to the US market through AGOA and diplomatic relations alleging that South Africa had a vendetta against Israel, allegedly committing human rights violations and was friendly with China's Community Party. [email protected] IOL Politics

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store