AN OPEN LETTER TO THE NEWS DIGGERS: STOP PEDDLING FALSEHOODS—THE LEGAL FACTS BEHIND THE LUNGU BURIAL CASE

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE NEWS DIGGERS: STOP PEDDLING FALSEHOODS—THE LEGAL FACTS BEHIND THE LUNGU BURIAL CASE

Tagline: When Propaganda Masquerades as Journalism, the Public Deserves the Truth

By: Ghost-Writers Media Watch

To the Editor, Ivy Mwansa, and Dr. Mbita Chitala,

Enough of Demagoguery Propaganda.

There comes a point when shoddy journalism transcends mere incompetence and enters the realm of deliberate disinformation. Your recent article, “People are now afraid to speak because of cyber laws – Mbita,” is not just another opinion piece—it is a carefully crafted vehicle for public confusion, designed to shift blame onto the Government of Zambia for a legal impasse that the Lungu family alone has the power to resolve.

Let us be clear: Dr. Chitala’s suggestion that Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha should “discontinue the court matter” is either a display of profound legal illiteracy or a calculated deception. Given his stature as a “veteran politician,” we must assume the latter.

For the sake of the gullible and naive citizens you are deliberately misleading, and for the record of history, here is the complete, chronological, and legally verified timeline of events. We invite you to point out a single inaccuracy.

THE COMPLETE CHRONOLOGY: FROM DEATH TO DELAY

PHASE 1: The Death and Initial Response (June 2025)

5 June 2025 – Former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu dies at Mediclinic Medforum Hospital in Pretoria, South Africa, where he was receiving medical treatment . His daughter, Tasila Lungu-Mwansa, announces his passing in a video statement .

Immediate Aftermath – President Hakainde Hichilema cuts short a development tour in Northern Province, issues a statement of condolence, and orders flags to fly at half-mast for seven days . The government announces plans for a state funeral befitting a former head of state and begins coordination with the family for repatriation .

PHASE 2: The Family’s Change of Course (June 2025)

Mid-June 2025 – The Lungu family abruptly cancels plans to repatriate the body to Zambia, disrupting the national mourning programme declared by the President . They announce intentions to bury the former President privately in South Africa, citing claims that the late President did not want his successor “anywhere near his body” .

24 June 2025 – With burial in South Africa imminent, Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha urgently approaches the Pretoria High Court. The government secures an interdict (injunction) stopping the burial, arguing that: (a) the late President is entitled to a state funeral with full military honours in his homeland; (b) precedent from Zambian law (the Kenneth Kaunda case) establishes the state’s interest in such matters; and (c) public interest demands a dignified repatriation .

PHASE 3: The SAPS Forensic Protocol Consideration

A Critical Legal Note on Autopsy Requirements – Under South African law, when a death occurs under circumstances that may be unnatural, like poisoning allegations by PF Secretary General Mr Nakachinda, the South African Police Service (SAPS) has a statutory mandate. According to the Regulations relating to the provision of Forensic Pathology Service:

A person in charge of a health establishment where a person has died of unnatural causes must immediately notify SAPS.

A post-mortem examination may only be conducted with the express request of the Investigating Officer investigating the death, or authorization from a magistrate.

In all instances where foul play is suspected or causes are unknown, deaths are immediately reported to SAPS for investigation under the Inquests Act, 1959 .

Given the family’s public statements suggesting the late President “may have been eliminated by actors linked to the State” , such allegations—if formally raised—would trigger mandatory SAPS forensic protocols.
This legal reality further complicates any suggestion of a “simple” release of the body.

PHASE 4: The High Court Trial and Judgment (June–August 2025)

24 June – August 2025 – The matter proceeds to trial in the Pretoria High Court. The family argues that the late President’s alleged wishes justify a foreign burial. The government maintains that the presidency as an institution—not political rivalry—demands repatriation .

8 August 2025 – The full bench of the Pretoria High Court unanimously rules in favour of the Zambian government. The Court orders that:

The former President’s remains be repatriated to Zambia

The body be handed over to the Zambian High Commission in Pretoria

Burial proceed with full state honours

The Court explicitly rejects the family’s claims, finding no credible evidence to support assertions that the late President did not want President Hichilema near his funeral .

PHASE 5: The Family’s Multi-Track Legal Resistance (August–December 2025)

26 August 2025 – The family attempts to appeal directly to South Africa’s Constitutional Court, bypassing the Supreme Court of Appeal. Judges reject this irregular approach and direct them back to the proper procedural channels .

16 September 2025 – The family files an application for leave to appeal with the Pretoria High Court. The High Court dismisses the application, ruling there is “no reasonable prospect of success” .

23 December 2025 – The family finally follows correct procedure and petitions the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). The SCA grants them leave to appeal the High Court’s decision .

CRITICAL POINT: At this stage, the family has been granted permission to appeal—but they have not yet filed their actual appeal. The clock is ticking. The SCA gives them until February 2026 to file their formal notice and arguments .

PHASE 6: Silence, Then Sudden Action—The Asset Forfeiture Connection (February 2026)

December 2025 – January 2026 – For nearly two months after being granted leave to appeal, the family takes no action. The body remains in a Johannesburg morgue. The public is left wondering why the family, having fought so hard for the right to appeal, simply sits on its hands.

8 February 2026 – Zambia’s Economic and Financial Crimes Court (EFCC) orders the forfeiture of 79 vehicles and 23 properties, including a filling station and luxury apartments allegedly gifted by the late President to his son, Dalitso Lungu .

9 February 2026 – COINCIDENCE?
The very next day, the Lungu family finally files its formal appeal with the Supreme Court of Appeal—just one day after the asset forfeiture order, and just days before the February 16 deadline .

PHASE 7: The Current Impasse (Present Day)

Current Status – The matter is now pending before the South African Supreme Court of Appeal. The family has filed its notice of appeal. The government will be required to respond. Legal analysts note that even after the SCA rules, the losing party could potentially appeal further to the Constitutional Court, meaning “the resolution of Lungu’s burial is far from over” .

Who Holds the Power? – Let us be absolutely clear: The active legal instrument preventing burial is the FAMILY’S APPEAL. The government won its case. The government secured a court order for repatriation. The government is ready to receive the body and conduct a state funeral. The only thing standing in the way is the legal action initiated and maintained by the Lungu family .

THE PROPAGANDA TACTICS: A DISSECTION

Now, Ms. Mwansa and Dr. Chitala, let us examine the techniques you are employing to mislead the public:

Tactic #1: Omission of Critical Context

You present Dr. Chitala’s statement that the Attorney General should “discontinue the court matter” without explaining that the government already won its case. You omit that the active case is the family’s appeal. This is not journalism; it is editing the truth to fit a narrative.

Tactic #2: Creating a False Equivalence

By suggesting the government is “holding the burial process,” you imply that the Attorney General has the power to end this by simply walking away. This is legally nonsensical. The government cannot “discontinue” a case it already won. The winner cannot withdraw from a race the loser is still running.

Tactic #3: Weaponizing Public Grief

You exploit the natural desire of Zambians to see their former leader buried with dignity. You use this emotional response to manufacture outrage against the government, when the factual target of that outrage should be the party actively maintaining the litigation.

Tactic #4: The Timing Dodge

The timing of the family’s appeal filing—one day after a massive asset forfeiture order—has raised “serious questions about motive” among political and legal analysts . The appeal is now “widely viewed not as a fight for dignity—but as a last legal front in a collapsing political and financial empire” . Yet your reporting conveniently ignores this context.

Tactic #5: The “Alleged Wishes” Gambit

The family claims the late President did not want President Hichilema near his funeral. The South African High Court rejected this claim for lack of credible evidence . Yet you continue to platform this assertion as fact, allowing the family to have its day in the court of public opinion after losing in the court of law.

THE LEGAL REALITY: WHO CAN END THIS?

For the avoidance of doubt, let us state the legal position in simple terms:

The Government won a court order for repatriation. It is legally and practically ready to implement that order. It cannot unilaterally “withdraw” from a case it already concluded successfully.

The Lungu family lost at the High Court, was denied leave to appeal by the High Court, and only secured leave from the SCA after following proper procedure. They then delayed filing their actual appeal for nearly two months, only doing so after significant asset forfeitures in Zambia.

The Power to End the Legal Process rests with:

The Family, if they withdraw their appeal

The Supreme Court of Appeal, if it rules against the family and no further appeal is pursued

The Constitutional Court, if the matter proceeds to that level

The Attorney General cannot “discontinue” what the family has actively appealed. To suggest otherwise is either ignorance or intentional deception.

A DIRECT CHALLENGE TO THE DIGGERS

Ms. Mwansa, your publication has a “propensity for disinforming the public through carefully selected news sources who mislead without challenge.” This is not an accusation; it is an observation of your established pattern.

You had a responsibility to ask Dr. Chitala the obvious follow-up questions:

“Dr. Chitala, on what legal basis can the Attorney General withdraw from a case he has already won?”

“Is it not the family’s appeal that is currently preventing burial?”

“Why did the family wait until after major asset forfeitures to file their appeal?”

Your failure to ask these questions is not an oversight. It is complicity in a disinformation campaign.

CONCLUSION: THE BALL IS IN ONE COURT

The Zambian people deserve better. They deserve journalists who will tell them, clearly and simply: the Lungu family holds the keys to this legal prison. They filed the appeal. They maintain the appeal. They alone can end the appeal.

Every day that Dr. Chitala appears on your platform to blame the government, every day you publish headlines suggesting the Attorney General is the obstacle, you are actively participating in the deception of the Zambian public.

The facts are on the record. The chronology is undeniable. The legal principle is clear.

The only question remaining is whether The News Diggers will continue its propaganda campaign or finally do what journalism requires: report the truth, even when it is inconvenient for your preferred narrative.

We await your correction with bated breathing.

Sincerely,

GHOST-WRITERS
MEDIA WATCH