By Chilufya Tayali
SOME ARGUMENTS ON THE EDGAR LUNGU CASE, AS IT COME UP FOR RULING TOMORROW @20:00HRS
==================
I got these arguments from someone who wants to remain anonymous but I will discuss what is likely to happen tomorrow as the case comes up for ruling.
1. It is supported by law and custom to reinstate benefits on a corpse. If I am fired from Civil service today and immediately die even before instituting proceedings in the Courts of law, my family or any other person who is directly affected by this firing can contest such a decision even when am in the grave.
The case may take even decades to be disposed but definitely it will day. If the party that sues the employer wins then all benefits that acrue to myself (now corpse) will be paid to me and then beneficiaries can benefit.
2. A dead body has some rights: Can a hospital carelessly release confidential patient information when the patient has died and now is a corpse. Probably put it because the patient had no one by their bed side or even relatives? Certainly not, confidentiality continues even in death. This shows you a corpse has rights.
3. Can a person found having carnal knowledge with a corpse go free or should be arrested? Obviously arrested.
Can I go to the graveyard and dig graves of bodies that were buried as unclaimed bodies and remove private parts so that I argue the dead have no rights? Certainly not.
It is true that no one can be compelled to accept benefits but that does not mean the benefits should not be reinstated. In Zambia if I die today and my family, relatives and dependants reject my benefits for one reason or the other then the state is left with no option but to claim the benefits unto itself.
If the lawyer is to make any point at law and win the case he should premise his arguments on which law to apply in this situation and not a corpse having no rights at law.
If it is decided in Favor of this lawyer then a VERY BAD PRECEDENCE WORLD OVER will have been set. Politicians around the world will own citizenship of this Country immediately after leaving offices so that their families will have no issues and hence will burry them in this country. A wrong precedence indeed.
LET NORMALCY PREVAIL. LET NO INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS NOT HOLD GOVER MENTS HOSTAGE. THAT WOULD BE A VAD PRECEDENCE.
Chilufya Tayali yes this is not your article but whoever put this together is hollow minded because there is no legality in everything you have said. You are arguing like we used to in the debating clubs at high school. This is serious law bro with evidence based material provided. Your arguments are kindergarten stuff. Sometimes you are wiser by staying silent. Both parties submitted their arguments and a decision will be passed. Stop hallucinating with you nursery school arguments , this is old fork stuff mate.