Let’s reform Benefits of Former Presidents Act

The Mast Editorial Comment:

Let’s reform Benefits of Former Presidents Act

THE protracted impasse between the Zambian government and the family of late former President Edgar Lungu over his burial has brought into sharp focus the shortcomings of the Benefits of Former Presidents Act No. 33 of 1994.

While this law was enacted with the noble intention of safeguarding the dignity and welfare of those who once occupied the highest office in the land, it has over the years been turned into a weapon of political control.

It is not the entire law that is problematic. Indeed, it is important for a country to honour its former heads of state by guaranteeing them pensions, security, medical care and other privileges befitting their status. Such benefits are not a matter of charity but a recognition of their service to the nation. The problem lies in a specific clause that provides for the withdrawal of benefits when a former president decides to re-enter active politics.

This is where the contradiction emerges. Our Constitution clearly allows a former president who has served only one term to contest elections for a second term. This means that participation in politics after leaving office is not in itself unconstitutional.

Yet, the Benefits of Former Presidents Act effectively punishes a former president who chooses to exercise this constitutional right by stripping them of their benefits. That is neither just nor logical.

History shows us the dangers of such laws. Former president Frederick Chiluba, driven by fear of his predecessor, Dr Kenneth Kaunda, used this very provision to deny Kaunda his benefits when he returned to politics.  This was not done out of principle but out of political rivalry and insecurity. Now, decades later, the country finds itself haunted by the same vindictive provisions, this time in relation to Lungu’s burial.

President Hakainde Hichilema, too, fell into this same trap. Motivated by political fears, his administration invoked the Act to withdraw Lungu’s benefits, denied him foreign travel on multiple occasions to seek specialised medical care and relentlessly pursued him and his family with heavy-handed measures unto his death.

The moral lesson here is that leaders should never make laws to punish those they dislike. Chiluba did it by making aggravated robbery an unbailable offence, targeting political opponents. Hichilema repeated the same mistake by invoking the Benefits Act against Lungu. These actions may serve short-term political goals but they plant seeds of national instability and resentment.

The current impasse illustrates the absurdity of trying to reinstate benefits “on a corpse,” as the Lungu family lawyer, Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, argued before the Pretoria Division of the Gauteng High Court. Benefits are meant for living former presidents, not for bargaining over the burial of the dead. Moreover, the widow, Esther Lungu, cannot be compelled to accept such benefits because she is under no obligation to do so.

It is time for Zambia to learn from best practices around the world. In the United States (US), for example, former presidents receive lifetime pensions, security and office allowances under the Former Presidents Act. They are free to endorse candidates and even participate in political campaigns, yet their benefits are never withdrawn. Their dignity and welfare are safeguarded regardless of their political choices. That is the mark of a mature democracy. Not the nonsense we are witnessing in Zambia today.

Zambia should follow suit by amending or repealing the problematic provisions of the Benefits of Former Presidents Act of 1994. What we need is a law that protects former presidents’ dignity unconditionally, while allowing them to exercise their constitutional rights like any other citizen.
Even President Hichilema will need such protection after leaving office. Should he decide to engage in active politics as a former president, that should not be enough reason to withdraw his benefits. He must continue enjoying them.

That is why Hichilema should focus his reform agenda on this ridiculous law – not in reviving controversial constitutional amendments designed to extend his political tenure. True leadership is demonstrated by fixing the weaknesses of the law to prevent future crises. If we fail to act, we risk finding ourselves in similar humiliating situations again, unable to bury our former leaders with dignity and respect. If he leaves office without correcting this foolish law, it may also haunt him.

The lesson is clear: laws should never be crafted or applied as tools of vengeance. They must serve justice, stability and the nation’s collective dignity. Reforming the Benefits of Former Presidents Act is long overdue.