ECL Family’s Constitutional Court Bid, Understanding the South African Legal Position
Tobbius Chilembo Hamunkoyo-LLB
The family of the late former Zambian President, Edgar Chagwa Lungu, has lodged an application before the Constitutional Court of South Africa seeking to set aside the Pretoria High Court’s ruling which authorised the Zambian government to repatriate his remains for burial in Zambia.
Going through chapter 8, Section 167(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, the Constitutional Court is the highest authority in constitutional matters, but it only hears such cases if they raise an arguable point of law of general public importance or a constitutional issue.
We need to understand that filing this application alone does not suspend or overturn the High Court judgment, it remains a mere request until the Constitutional Court decides to hear it, which both parties will have a say before the determination of the application in court.
For now, the Pretoria High Court’s judgment stands as binding and enforceable under South African law, in line with the principle that judgments of a competent court remain in force unless overturned or suspended by a higher court (as recognised under Rule 18 of the Constitutional Court Rules on direct access and leave to appeal).
This allows the Zambian government, which maintains that the late president should receive a state burial in Zambia under its own laws and traditions, to proceed with its plans unless the Constitutional Court grants a stay of execution or rules in favour of the Lungu family.
The Constitutional Court will only intervene if it finds that there are compelling constitutional grounds, for example, a breach of the Bill of Rights or significant procedural irregularities in the High Court’s process.
Until then, the status quo favours the Zambian government’s position, and the Lungu family’s application remains an unfulfilled legal desire, awaiting the court’s decision on whether it will even be entertained.
They tricked the high court yesterday these people are very crooked, personally I don’t think if madam Esther lungu she normal this woman no way how you can have such a bad heart, your man is in the mortuary you as wife you are busy doing wrong things moreover you were just married you are not family member.
In what capacity is this LLB man informing the public about cases outside the Zambian judicial jurisdiction?
LAZ should regulate legal expert opinion dissemination to the public.
The medical profession has done it.
LAZ is incapable of giving objective opinion as they are partian.
The current executive has hardly been objective in the matters against the Lungus. Look back at tge Chizombe Concourt case. Instead of being neutral they as well as past LAZ Presidents gave opinions that proved wrong. How can one expect objective legal opinion when they were wrong?
The South African ConCourt will cite the law and previous precedence. However, the facts of the matter and court testimony can not be expanged as the South African High Court based their rulling on the facts of the matter.
Did Egdar Lungu want to be buried in South Africa? No.