A profound legal and political battle is unfolding in South Africa concerning the final resting place of former Zambian President, Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu. This solemn mission, undertaken by figures like former Minister Richard Musukwa, former DMMU National Coordinator Chanda Kabwe, and Chilufya Kasonde, seeks to ensure a respectful funeral for the late President through legal channels at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein.

However, the pursuit of this dignity abroad is overshadowed by a cynical drama back home, orchestrated by Mr. Makebi Zulu and his surrogates. Critics accuse Mr. Zulu of hijacking the negotiation process between the Zambian Government and the Lungu family for blatant political expediency. It is argued that his primary goal is not the respectful burial of the former President or the emotional well-being of the family, but rather to prolong the dispute, turn it into a theatrical crisis, and thereby erode support for President Hakainde Hichilema. This strategy is seen as a calculated attempt to use the dead to defeat the living, exploiting a family’s pain for political gain in the run-up to the 2026 elections, a tactic dubbed as 'ghoul politics'.

During the intense proceedings before the South African Supreme Court of Appeal, judges openly challenged the Zambian Government's legal arguments. The Court questioned the government's reliance on historical precedent and customary practice to justify its authority over the burial process. Judges specifically remarked, “You cannot simply say this is how it has always been done and expect that to pass as law,” insisting on clear constitutional and legal justifications over tradition alone.

A central point of contention was the government’s attempt to use the Kenneth Kaunda burial case as authority. The Court highlighted significant differences, noting that former President Kaunda had neither been stripped of his benefits nor left express wishes regarding his burial, unlike the circumstances surrounding Dr. Lungu. The judges pressed government lawyer Ben Stoop for expert evidence on Zambian customary law regarding burial rights, emphasizing that a court decision alone is insufficient to establish customary practice. “That is just a decision of the Court. But with customs, one needs more,” a judge remarked, demanding expert testimony rather than relying on historical accounts or the opinion of a government official.

Furthermore, the Court meticulously examined the government’s position regarding Dr. Lungu’s status after his presidential benefits were reportedly withdrawn following his return to active politics. “What was left of his presidency?” one judge probed, exposing a contradiction in the State’s argument that a former president whose benefits were suspended in life could still be fully subject to state authority and ceremonial control after death. Government lawyer Ben Stoop argued that Dr. Lungu remained a “national person” whose significance extended beyond family interests, asserting that Ubuntu required public interest to outweigh private wishes. However, the Court also scrutinised the government's claim that military honors and state funeral procedures necessitate presidential involvement as Commander-in-Chief, especially as the Lungu family reportedly had no objection to President Hichilema attending the funeral in a personal or diplomatic capacity, raising questions about whether the dispute is truly about attendance or broader state control.

With judgment now reserved, this case is increasingly seen as a landmark constitutional confrontation. It is poised to define the limits of executive authority, the application of customary law, and the delicate balance between national symbolism and family rights in Zambia. The situation underscores a stark contrast between those genuinely seeking a resolution and those perceived to be exploiting a tragic impasse for political mileage. Zambians are urged to recognize political opportunism and allow for the dignified rest of a former Head of State, free from selfish ambitions.