Given Lubinda's National Mourning Declaration: A Political Overstep or Mere Party Tribute? - The Zambian Observer
Given Lubinda’s National Mourning Declaration: A Political Overstep or Mere Party Tribute?
By ; Tobbius Chilembo Hamunkoyo – LLB, Author, Scientist, Political and Governance Activist
The recent declaration of seven days of national mourning by Hon. Given Lubinda, the purported Acting President of the Patriotic Front (PF), sparked a national debate about the constitutional and legal limits of political leadership after the death of our Former Head of state Edgar Chagwa Lungu.
Was it a heartfelt tribute to the late President Edgar Chagwa Lungu, or a calculated political overreach during a moment of national grief?
Who Has the Authority to Declare National Mourning?
According to the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 2016, and established state practice, the exclusive power to declare a national mourning period lies with the Republican President- currently His Excellency Mr. Hakainde Hichilema.
This responsibility is usually carried out through a statutory instrument (SI), announced by the Secretary to the Cabinet, in this case Mr Patrick Kangwa and executed through government channels.
Therefore, any declaration of national mourning outside this framework, especially by an opposition leader, raises serious constitutional questions, breaches and Violations.
Context Behind Lubinda’s Declaration
Hon. Given Lubinda made his declaration following the passing of former Republican President Edgar Chagwa Lungu on 5th June 2025.
In a widely viewed Facebook live broadcast, Lubinda called for a seven-day mourning period among PF members and sympathizers, to be observed at designated party venues nationwide while at PF secretariat in Lusaka.He further suggested that the nation should prepare for “another official funeral,” creating confusion about the distinction between party-organized commemorations and the state-led mourning process, very disappointing.
Blurring the Line Between Party and State
Political parties in Zambia have the freedom to organize internal commemorations for their leaders. However, the declaration of national mourning is a sovereign act- one that symbolizes state recognition and binds all government institutions and citizens.
By framing his party mourning directive as a national event, Lubinda may have blurred the line between political loyalty and constitutional authority.
It is true that most critics argue that this not only undermines the dignity of state protocols but could also amount to an attempt to politically reposition himself as a national figure during a highly emotional and sensitive time.
Legal and Constitutional Concerns
Several potential legal implications arise from Given Lubinda’s actions;
1. Usurpation of Executive Functions
Under Article 92 of the Constitution, executive powers- including the declaration of national mourning—reside solely in the office of the President.
Given Lubinda’s pronouncement may be viewed as an attempt to exercise presidential functions without lawful authority, potentially violating constitutional separation of powers.
2. Violation of the Public Order Act (Chapter 113, Laws of Zambia)
The Public Order Act governs public gatherings and national announcements that can affect public conduct. If Given Lubinda’s statement led to uncoordinated or unauthorized gatherings, the government may argue that he violated public order regulations- especially if his actions caused disruption or confusion.
3. Political Misrepresentation or Abuse of Office
While not criminal in itself, issuing a public directive with national implications- when one holds no government office—may constitute political misconduct. Lubinda may be perceived to have misrepresented his capacity, raising questions about abuse of political influence or manipulation of public sentiment.
4. Publication of False or Misleading Information
If Lubinda implied that his declaration had official backing or government support, it could fall under the ambit of spreading false information, which is punishable under certain statutes including the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act No. 2 of 2021 ,CAP 87 of the Laws of zambia section 67, depending on how the statements were presented and received.
5. Incitement to Public Disorder (if proven)
If the state believes that Given Lubinda’s remarks had the potential to incite unrest or undermine the government’s authority, they could invoke security-related laws, including sections under the Penal Code Act that deal with incitement or subversion. Although this would be an extreme position, the political climate could influence how the matter is handled.
Public Reaction and Social Media Commentary
Lubinda’s declaration was met with widespread skepticism on social media. Many Zambians questioned his authority, with remarks such as;
“You are not in power; you cannot declare even a single day of national mourning.”
“You are not the Republican President, Secretary to the Cabinet, nor a Minister .”
“This is not a PF funeral; it is a national matter.”Edgar Chagwa Lungu was a president for all Zambians and not for the political party only.
These public reactions illustrated constitutional awareness among citizens, who increasingly demand that political figures operate within the bounds of their authority.
A Risky Political Move?
Given Lubinda’s legal history, including previously facing but being acquitted of corruption charges in 2024- his recent actions may invite increased scrutiny from both the public and state institutions. Some analysts argue that his move was a calculated attempt to project leadership and revive the PF’s national image, especially amid internal factional disputes.
The Government’s Response and Protocol Compliance
President Hakainde Hichilema and the Government of the Republic of Zambia have since announced an official period of national mourning, with state-sanctioned tributes and a planned state funeral program.
These proceedings are and will be governed by the Cabinet Office (Funeral Guidelines) and follow long-established practices observed during the passing of former presidents.
Given Lubinda’s parallel directive, though perhaps emotionally driven—risked undermining national unity and state coordination, at a time when the country needed collective mourning and healing.
While political figures and parties may wish to honor their leaders, they must do so within the legal and constitutional framework of the Republic of Zambia.
People should know that the declaration of national mourning is not merely symbolic, it is a sovereign act of state authority.
Given Lubinda’s actions, though likely driven by genuine grief and party loyalty, raise serious legal, ethical, and political questions which I am sure should be reviewed and investigated after the funeral.
Going forward, Zambia must continue to uphold the rule of law and ensure that political expression does not erode constitutional order, especially in times of national sorrow, very important.
