Let us be clear. President Hakainde Hichilema’s decision to take the Lungu family to court in South Africa, where they had already decided to bury their loved one, was not an act of respect or goodwill. It was a calculated and desperate attempt to evade the reality that he intended to bulldoze his way through the funeral arrangements and preside over the proceedings, despite being explicitly told that the deceased’s final wish was for him to stay away.

President Hichilema seemingly believed that the South African judiciary would somehow bend to his demands and allow the remains of his predecessor to be repatriated on terms favorable to him. This was a serious miscalculation. Unlike the compromised judicial system in Zambia, which has repeatedly demonstrated susceptibility to executive manipulation, South Africa’s courts have a remarkable degree of independence and integrity and cannot bow to political pressure.

The contrast between the two judicial systems could not be clearer. In Zambia, the judiciary has often been a tool in the hands of the executive to enforce political agendas. Take, for example, the eligibility case in which President Hichilema ensured that his main rival, Edgar Chagwa Lungu, now deceased, was barred from participating in the 2026 elections. This blatant use of the courts to eliminate political competition is a stark indicator of how the rule of law is undermined.

Similarly, when Bill No. 7 faced an impending adverse ruling by the Constitutional Court, President Hichilema preemptively deferred it. According to insiders, he was informed that the court was poised to pass a judgment against the bill the very next day. In an effort to save face and avoid the embarrassment of a legal defeat, the president quickly claimed that he had advised the Justice Minister to seek broader consultation. But the timing was too conspicuous to ignore. It was yet another sign of executive interference cloaked in political convenience.

These examples underscore a disturbing reality. Zambia’s judiciary is not a neutral arbiter but often a servant of political expediency.

Faced with the reality that the South African judicial system operates independently, the Zambian government has now shifted tactics, seeking an amicable and expedited settlement with the Lungu family to avoid losing the court battle. This shift reveals an implicit acknowledgment that political influence has limits, especially beyond Zambia’s borders.

This leads to an unavoidable and urgent question: Can President Hichilema be trusted? Given the pattern of interference, manipulation, and disregard for the deceased’s final wishes, the answer must be a firm no.

What is at stake here goes beyond political rivalry or legal technicalities. It is a matter of dignity, respect, and basic human decency. The Lungu family deserves the peace to mourn their beloved husband, father, grandfather, uncle, and brother without the intrusion of political machinations or public spectacle. The funeral should be a private, sacred moment, not a stage for political posturing or an arena for power struggles.

The only viable path forward is to allow the courts to adjudicate this matter transparently and fairly. We trust that the South African court, which already has a precedent affirming that the family has the final say regarding the remains of the deceased, will uphold the family’s rights and pronounce itself accordingly.