A COFFIN IN THE COURTROOM: WHAT COULD HAPPEN NEXT IN THE LUNGU BURIAL SAGA

A man has died—but instead of resting in peace, his body has become the centre of a legal and political tug-of-war. The funeral that was supposed to bring unity has now brought confusion.

So where is this drama heading? What are the likely outcomes? What do they mean for our country—especially with 2026 elections just around the corner?

Let’s walk through FOUR possible scenarios.

SCENARIO 1: A GRACEFUL COMPROMISE

This is the best-case scenario. The family, the government, and the church put aside pride and politics. They agree to bring the late president’s body back home. There’s a proper state funeral at Embassy Park, and the current president attends quietly and respectfully—no speeches, no insults, just dignity.

What happens next?

Zambians breathe a sigh of relief. The tension reduces. Focus returns to real issues—like the price of mealie meal, the economy, etc. Both sides earn respect for maturity. This moment becomes one of healing, not division.

What does it mean for 2026?

UPND may gain trust as peacemakers. PF may gain sympathy for showing humility. But most importantly, voters will reward whichever side talks sense about their daily lives, not about graves.

SCENARIO 2: A PROLONGED COURT BATTLE

This is already happening. The funeral is on hold because of court orders in South Africa. If the court processes drag on for months, the family may keep the body in South Africa while lawyers argue.

What happens next?

The public gets tired. Every week it’s headlines about “injunctions,” “applications,” and “state versus family.” People stop caring. They begin to feel both sides are playing games with the dead. The story starts to rot—like any body kept too long above the ground.

What does it mean for 2026?

PF may use it to say “our leader was disrespected.” But the longer the fight continues, the more voters may say, “You are not ready to lead; you are still fighting over the past.” UPND may appear focused and in control—but only if they avoid bitterness.

SCENARIO 3: A FLASHPOINT PROTEST

This is the dangerous path. Suppose a group of PF supporters decides to hold a funeral on their own terms. Or a public gathering turns into a riot. Or youths clash with police. One wrong move, one spark—and violence erupts.

What happens next?

Zambia’s peace is shaken. International headlines scream: “Chaos in Lusaka Over Funeral Dispute.” Investors panic. Families keep their children indoors. The burial becomes a battlefield, not a send-off.

What does it mean for 2026?

The public may blame PF for provoking trouble—or blame the government for failing to prevent it. Either way, voters will lean towards the side that promises peace and order. In times of fear, people vote for calm, not chaos. Just like in 2021 when they voted out cadres.

SCENARIO 4: THE BODY STAYS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Let’s say the family stands firm and the court allows them to bury Lungu privately in South Africa. No state funeral. No parade. No Embassy Park. Just a quiet send-off far from home.

What happens next?

The family gets closure. The government moves on. But emotions remain high—especially among PF loyalists, who will carry that pain into 2026 like a wound that never healed.

What does it mean for 2026?

PF turns Lungu into a martyr. “They chased our president even in death,” they will say. “Vote for us to restore dignity.” It becomes a campaign message. But again—will that message feed anyone’s family? Will it fix the load-shedding? If PF focuses only on emotions and forgets about real solutions, the sympathy may not translate into votes.

TRUTH BE TOLD

We are a country of strong opinions and deep emotions. But this moment calls for something more powerful than pride—it calls for maturity. Zambians know how to argue, yes. But we also know how to forgive, how to move on, and how to do what is right for the future.

A coffin is not a campaign poster. A funeral is not a battlefield.

May those leading both sides remember that before we all pay a price too high to bear.

Zambian Angle  
04th July 2025

Muhabi Lungu

When Tongue in Cheek Tribal Insinuations, Hatred, and Deception is Promoted and encouraged by a Head of State.

A FIVE  CHAPTER  SERIES BY  MUHABI LUNGU

Chapter One (i)

One week ago today, On 24th June 2025, on the same day that the Zambian  State filed an inadvisable court injunction in South Africa, primarily in order to punish the  *Widow* and *Family* of his main, deceased rival, ( my opinion), our ‘unassailable’ President also decided to hold several meetings of self justification. Among the organizations met  were the United Church of Zambia (UCZ) Executive and a large group of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs).

In both of these meetings, President HH seemed preoccupied with painting himself as a victim of some “hate’ conspiracy;  that all the other Presidents before him were not strongly opposed, when they attempted or  changed the republican constitution. That Kenneth Kaunda (KK) and Fredrick Chiluba ( FTJ)  both changed the constitution, a  year before elections and that neither of them were opposed nor had any “hatred” shown to them

In the meeting with CSOs, in particular, our ‘infallible’ President complained about being **hated* ; that he could “feel it and touch it”, while twiddling his fingers to indicate its heart felt texture and the proximity of this “hate”to him.  Guarded though he may have been, the implicit tribal  connection of this “hatred,” was as palpable as his explicit verbalization on this matter, on countless other times over the course of the last few years.

The implicit connection between hate and ethnicity was unquestionably clear to a great majority of listeners; people who have since  publicly shared their shock and disappointment. Of course,  he and all of his supporters will profusely deny it and accuse all of us of precisely providing the evidence to his point *that* *we* ” *hate* ” *him* . However, this complaint of “hatred” and  victimization is not new. It has been expressed on several occasions, by the President, over time and with  less guardedness.

At a mammoth rally held in Kalomo on 21st  May 2025, while campaigning and   referring to himself as  “Sirakainde”,  the President declared that he ” held the keys to power”  and that he was ” *permanently* *seated* *to* *the* *thrown* *of* *that* *power* ” and that no one was going to remove him; “that the leadership was theirs and that they should not allow it to be taken away from them.” There can be no denial as to what was being requested for here.

This tongue in cheek subliminal tribal rallying call, deceives no one. Both for those whom the message is intended for  and for those whom it is not. We are  all able to fully understand what is being communicated and what is being solicited. In this recent case of last week,  the exact words of the President were as follows and I quote…

“I have come to notice that in this country, *a* *guy* *like* *me* , is always viewed to be malicious and assessed differently from Presidents before me. Do you want me to justify it? ….YES, there wasn’t this sort of hatred that I can touch, I can feel, because it is HH. It is this animal pariah we don’t like. Why else don’t you like your fellow citizen? *What* *is* *the* *issue* *?*”, He asked.

Of course the insinuation and import of his questions were very clear to me and to most honest observers. Upon seeing and hearing this, I cringed and gnashed my teeth. Subsequently, I genuinely felt injured, insulted and disturbed that a Head of State can use such strong accusatory words, in public, against the Zambian people and in order to claim victimization and sympathy for purposes of casting evil intent on the fundamental right towards his power being  checked and balanced. That he can publicly and manipulatively ask rhetorical questions, ostensibly designed to elicit leading and suggestive answers; responses which by themselves may promote suggestive defensive “hatred”. Incredibly frightening.

What does he mean by  “a guy like me?” Is he suggesting that ” *a*  *guy* *like* *me* ,” whatever that means, is  above  legitimate criticism. Is he suggesting that  we are  not to express any  objections against his bad governance style;  because he is somehow special as opposed to those other presidents who previously held the office? Is he demanding that his  poor judgement of human relations be exempt from criticism because of some peculiar and unstated condition?

In an analysis of his perspective and in answer to my questions, I will, over the next week, attempt to unpack what I understand his intentions  to be, by saying what he said. What is the possible value and strategy in his  accusation of  “hatred”, apparently directed to him  by his  critics.

Let me first begin by evaluating the truthfulness of his statement regarding the lack of strong  opposition voices in previous constitutional amendments.

*Luck* *of* *Hatred* *in* *Previous* *Constitutional* *Amendments* *from* *1973- 2021* .

Let me raise my very strong objection to this *low* , *down,* *dirty* *and* *shameful* *telling* *of* *a* *lie* , ( unworthy to be uttered by a President) that there were no voices of strong decent and objection or active opposition  forthcoming, by anybody, during constitutional reforms or changes in 1973, 1990, 1996, 2001, 2016 and 2021.

Secondly, I have noticed a dangerous trend in our country, over the last few years, in which expressing an opposing view or  strongly disagreeing with someone’s  bad behavior is  equivalent to “hate.” Clearly, the Head of State believes in the principle that opposing his ideas and actions is hatred. He has firmly stated it so. This belief, now frequently repeated by his followers is not only inimical to democracy but very dangerous and retrogressive towards societal progress. It is the stuff by which dictators are born. Those who want to remain permanently gulued to a seat for which there is no constitutional permanency.

Nevertheless, let me categorically state that the accusation of former Presidents not having been opposed,  is either a blatant and deliberate falsehood or grave ignorance of our collective  history by its current Head of State. Either way, it is  unacceptable dishonesty and disrespect to all of us, to all of the numerous  people who risked their jobs, reputations and lives to openly oppose KK, Chiluba and Lungu in their various attempts at changing the constitution.

There can be no dispute or selective memory  loss to that fact that aggressive opposition was always  the case, in all instances in which constitutional amendments did not  originate  from popular demand. The opposition was  loud,  actively voiced, demonstrations held, court actions taken and international lobbing openly pursued. The activities of opposition were in fact so visible and noisy that only a blind and deaf individual could have failed to pick them up.

Only a totally detached individual or a deceitful person can claim ignorance of these events. People who have constantly opposed Constitutional  Manipulation, such as Sakwiba Sikota, John Sangwa, Brebnar Changala, Fred M’membe, Lucy Sichone, Fr. Umberto Davoli, Michael Musonda and Samuel Mulafulafu. Catholic clergy such as Fr. Joe Komakoma, Fr. Miya, Fr. Peter Henriot and  many other extra ordinary  as well as ordinary Zambians  too numerous to mention. Many of  these individuals are still here to tell the story and have been fighting  in opposition to all other Presidents since 1991.

In my personal case, I have been insulted, beaten by the police, tear gassed, arrested and jailed, charged with  Treason and Murder, for opposing many of these infractions. My unyielding opposition to contrived manipulation and looming dictatorial tendencies even have  contributed to my father, Mkhondo Lungu being unceremoniously fired from being Chief of Protocall and Permanent Secretary.

If HH is ahistorical and if his advisors do not have the courage and decency to put the record straight, in order to encourage him apologize to all those his offensive statement has injured, let me attempt to school him.

This I shall do in the next chapter (ii) to be released on Thursday 3rd of July 2025.

– End of Chapter One (I) .

“It’s About Dignity”: Lungu Family Cries Out Over Painful Betrayal by the State.

With sorrow etched deep in every word, the family of late President Edgar Chagwa Lungu has broken its silence exposing what they describe as an agonizing experience marked by broken promises, shifting goalposts, and a burial process that has become a national shame rather than a moment of honor.

From Johannesburg, family spokesperson Makebi Zulu fought back emotion as he spoke on behalf of a grieving family that says it feels humiliated, isolated, and stripped of its right to mourn in peace.

“This is not politics. This is about basic human decency,” Zulu said, his voice trembling. “We are mourning a father, a husband, a brother, and a leader. And all we’ve asked for is the space, the sincerity, and the dignity to say goodbye.”

Instead, the family says it has endured a cruel series of betrayals from the Zambian government beginning just a day after the late president passed away on June 5. Initial talks, they say, began in good faith on June 6. But every step forward was met with two steps back. Agreements reached with government leaders were later discarded. Commitments were made then denied.

Even the intervention of regional elder statesmen, such as former Malawian President Bakili Muluzi, was not enough to keep the process from unraveling. “What was agreed between President Hichilema and President Muluzi was later thrown out,” Zulu said, his tone heavy with disbelief. “Every time progress was made, the government changed the terms. Again and again.”

For the family, the pain has gone far beyond bureaucratic confusion it has become personal.

“What hurts the most,” Zulu confessed, “is the deliberate attempt to turn public opinion against us. State-owned and aligned media have painted us as difficult and unreasonable. We are not. We are just broken. We are just a family asking for peace.”

With tears in his heart, Zulu described how the state’s handling of the situation has left the family feeling like strangers in their own country as if their loved one’s legacy was being erased, one headline at a time.

“The body of our father still lies in wait. Not because we are divided. But because each time we come close to honouring his final wishes, those in charge move the goalposts.”

The grief, he said, has been compounded by silence, misinformation, and the sense that the very institutions meant to support them in mourning have instead waged a quiet campaign to shame them.

“We are hurting,” Zulu said quietly. “We are trying to bury a man who gave his life in service of this country, and yet we are being treated as though our pain is a burden.”

His final words were not political they were a raw, human plea to the conscience of the nation.

“We don’t want a spectacle. We don’t want fanfare. We just want a dignified farewell. We want to honour him with the same respect he gave this country whether you loved him or not. He was a father. He was ours. Let us bury him with peace.”

As Zambia watches, and as days turn to weeks with no closure in sight, the question now lingers painfully in the air: will a grieving family be allowed to mourn their loved one in dignity or will politics bury compassion?