11/09/2025
Kapya Kaoma
The courtroom drama in Pretoria should unsettle President Hichilema. On the surface, the case concerns where former Zambian President Edgar Lungu should be buried. At its core, however, it raises questions of sovereignty, constitutional rights, and the limits of foreign state power.
From the outset, legal observers noted weaknesses in the South African ruling that briefly favored Hichilema’s administration. The judgment relied heavily on the Kaunda precedent without citing substantive South African law. In effect, Zambia asked a South African court to enforce an unwritten “Zambian law” on South African soil—a proposition most analysts consider legally untenable. The leaked Robert Chabinga audio may explain the ruling’s initial tilt, but its constitutional foundations remain shaky.
Sensing this fragility, Lungu’s legal team led by renowned Senior Counsel, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, reframed the dispute. No longer Zambia versus the widow, the case became Zambia versus South Africa, transforming a burial conflict into a constitutional contest. The central question now was whether a foreign government could override South Africa’s domestic statutes on family rights and burial decisions.
This reframing is particularly damaging to Lusaka. South African law is explicit: the rights of the living outweigh the claims of the dead. Spouses and children—not states—determine the fate of a loved one’s remains. A co**se has no legal standing; it cannot inherit, contract, or accept benefits. Only the widow can. Zambia tacitly acknowledged this reality when it offered to restore Madam Lungu’s benefits—implicitly recognizing her legal primacy over the deceased. Yet still, Madam Lungu had to decide whether to accept them.