“Lungu Family Has Legal Standing in Burial Decisions” Sunday Chanda. …
Vice Chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs, Governance and Human Rights, Hon. Sunday Chilufya Chanda, has weighed in on the ongoing burial dispute involving the late former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu, stating that in the absence of a burial directive, the family holds the primary legal and cultural authority in deciding the burial arrangements.
In a legal opinion brief dated July 4, 2025, Hon. Chanda who is also the Member of Parliament for Kanchibiya and a candidate for the Master of Laws (LL.M) emphasized that while the State has an interest in honouring a former Head of State, such interest must not override family rights, cultural norms, or human dignity.
“In the absence of a burial directive in the will, the Lungu family remains the primary moral, cultural, and legal stakeholder in deciding where and how he is buried,” Chanda wrote, calling for respect, dialogue, and cultural sensitivity in handling the matter.
The Zambian Government has petitioned the Pretoria High Court in South Africa, seeking the repatriation of President Lungu’s body. The State argues that he did not specify a burial preference and that as a beneficiary under the Former Presidents’ Benefits Act, he should receive a State funeral. However, Chanda argues that the Act does not contain provisions that authorize the State to dictate burial arrangements.
“The Former Presidents’ Benefits Act, Cap. 15, is silent on burial procedures,” he stated. “While it restores entitlements after death, it does not extinguish family rights, particularly in the sacred matter of burial.”
Chanda cited several legal precedents to support his argument, including the 2021 case of the late President Kenneth Kaunda. Though the High Court upheld the government’s insistence on a State funeral at Embassy Park, it also emphasized that such decisions must be “lawful, proportionate, and consultative,” acknowledging the family’s importance in the process.
He also referenced the 1987 Kenyan case Wambui Otieno v. Ochieng & Clan, in which the court upheld the primacy of customary law in burial decisions, and cited recent rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, which held that interference with family burial decisions must be justified by a pressing public interest and respect the family’s rights.
Highlighting the risks of state overreach, Chanda warned that sidelining the family in such a culturally sensitive matter could lead to political, legal, and reputational damage. “Overriding family preferences may be seen as a cultural affront in Zambia, where burial is a sacred familial rite,” he noted. “It could set a dangerous precedent in matters of personal liberty and family autonomy.”
To resolve the impasse, Chanda proposed a mediated approach involving respected national institutions such as the Council of Churches, the House of Chiefs, or other neutral statesmen. He further urged the government to facilitate a joint communiqué with the Lungu family, agreeing on the burial site, the balance between public and private mourning, and religious versus ceremonial rites.
In the long term, Chanda called on the Zambian legislature to amend the Former Presidents’ Benefits Act to include clear burial protocols with mandatory family involvement. He stressed that his views are expressed in his personal academic capacity, not as a political statement. “This is a legal opinion brief written in exercise of my intellectual and academic freedom,” he wrote. “It is therefore not a political statement.”
July 5, 2025
©️ KUMWESU
Thank you for your article Mr Chanda, I however beg to differ. I know you have quoted the constitution, why others including government have expressed their position giving credence to past mortals of presidents that have already departed including KK. While families may have the final say and favoured in South Africa as a nation, I have to differ by saying this does to extend to Lungu. Lungu was not an ordinary person and it would be naive for the Zambian government to aceed to such an obnoxious request from the family. To start with when Lungu became President the family never objected to any government benefits for president. In fact during his tenure Lungu raised his salary twice or more if I am not mistaken while his government had freeze salaries for civil servants for entire time he was president. Secondly upon being swon in, in 2016 Lungu without any consultations or engagement with the Zambian citizens, Lungu went and picked a constitution Sata refused to sign because it had too many Lacuna and signed to replace the old constitution in order to give himself some extra years in office thereby binding Zambians without their will to a half baked constitution he hurriedly signed in order to score more terms as a president. This signing of the constitution binds Lungu to buried in Zambia. How can he assent to a constitution and then want to be buried in a foreign land. This stance by the family is null & void. If the family want to take this position Zambian citizens will seek reimbursement from the Lungu family from the time he bulldozed to sign the constitution. If he had informed Zambians before becoming president that he would want to be buried in South Africa they wouldn’t have voted for him to become president. If it’s true that Lungu had left such instructions then it just confirms why he ruled the nation in such a reckless manner. If the Lungu family and it’s Lawyer want to bury Lungu in South Africa, let them tell the South African court that no one will at any time will ever ask for his remains to be exhumed for reburial in Zambia, and the court should charge all the costs to Lungu’s Lawyer for his unethical and lack of integrity conduct.