Point of Correction: Concourt Did Not Reject Appeal – It Ordered Due Process, Not Shortcuts- Michael Zephaniah Phiri

Point of Correction: Concourt Did Not Reject Appeal – It Ordered Due Process, Not Shortcuts

By Michael Zephaniah Phiri, Political Activist

Let’s set the record straight. The sensational headlines screaming that “South Africa’s Constitutional Court has rejected the Lungu family’s appeal” *are misleading, premature, and intellectually dishonest.*  The truth is simple: *the Constitutional Court has NOT rejected the substance of the appeal. It has *simply directed the family of the late President Edgar Chagwa Lungu to follow the due legal process,*  as prescribed by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

What the Court Actually Said* 
In its ruling, the Concourt made it abundantly clear that there are no shortcuts in constitutional litigation.

The Lungu family cannot leapfrog the lower courts and run straight to the Constitutional Court. This is not how justice works. Those celebrating should take a deep breath, open a law book, and understand that the battle is not over—it has just begun.

The directive does not close the door;it simply asks the family to *walk through the right door first.*  That is the essence of constitutional democracy— the rule of law, not the rule of mob opinion or political propaganda.

What Does South Africa’s Constitution Say?

For those misinformed or deliberately peddling lies, Section 167(6)(a)*  of the *Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996,is crystal clear:

“National legislation or the Rules of the Constitutional Court must allow a person, when it is in the interests of justice and with leave of the Constitutional Court, to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court from any other court.”

This means direct appeals are exceptional, not automatic. The Lungu family attempted to invoke this direct route—but the court, exercising its constitutional discretion, ruled that the matter does not warrant bypassing the ordinary courts at this stage. That is not a rejection of their case; it is a reaffirmation of constitutional order.

Those who are celebrating today are essentially *celebrating the enforcement of procedure,*  not victory on the merits of the case. If this is what they call a “win,” then their legal comprehension is as shallow as their political thinking.

The Political Undertones

It is disturbing—but not surprising—that certain political actors and media outlets are exploiting this technical ruling to push a narrative of finality and humiliation for the Lungu family. This is classic propaganda: take a half-truth, distort it, and weaponize it to score cheap political points.

But facts do not bend to propaganda. The court did not rule against the family on the substance of the repatriation issue. *It merely said: Follow the law.* 

So, to those dancing in premature celebration:

▪️ Did you even read the judgment?

▪️ Do you understand the difference between a procedural directive and a substantive ruling?

▪️ Or are you too intoxicated with political hatred to care about the truth?

*The Bigger Picture* 

This case is not just about where Edgar Lungu will be buried. It raises profound constitutional questions about *human dignity, family rights, and the limits of state power in cross-border matters.*  South Africa prides itself on being a constitutional state, and this ruling proves that *even high-profile cases must walk the constitutional path.* 

Those mocking the Lungu family should remember: *the wheels of justice may grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.*  Today’s procedural directive is tomorrow’s substantive victory—if the legal arguments hold water.

*Final Word – The Punchline* 

The Constitutional Court has not said *“No”*  to the Lungu family. It has said: “ *We are a nation of laws.  Follow the process.”* To those prematurely jubilating, ask yourselves this: Since when did the enforcement of procedure become the death of justice?

*Premature celebration is the hobby of the ignorant—read the Constitution before you open the champagne.*