Why President Hakainde Hichilema’s Claim That Repatriating Former President Edgar Lungu’s Remains Is in the National Interest Rings Hollow- Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma

Why President Hakainde Hichilema’s Claim That Repatriating Former President Edgar Lungu’s Remains Is in the National Interest Rings Hollow

By Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma

President Hakainde Hichilema’s declaration that the repatriation of former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu’s remains is being conducted in the “national interest” is not merely unconvincing; it is fundamentally disingenuous. For a government that has repeatedly disregarded public outcry on matters central to the national good, invoking “national interest” at this moment reeks of hypocrisy and calculated political theater.

Zambians are not naive. If national interest were truly the foundation of this administration’s decisions, it would be reflected consistently across governance, not selectively and certainly not only when it serves political optics.

1. Refusal to Relocate to State House: A Costly Display of Entitlement

From the beginning of his presidency, Mr. Hichilema has refused to relocate to State House, the official residence of the Zambian president. This choice, unexplained and indefensible, continues to cost taxpayers dearly, as his private home is maintained as a pseudo-state facility. This decision is not one of principle but of privilege, made at the expense of public resources and national symbolism. The refusal to honor such a basic norm of office undermines the president’s credibility in claiming to act for the greater good.

2. Asset Declaration: A Deafening Silence on Transparency

Transparency is the backbone of accountability. Yet President Hichilema has repeatedly refused to publicly declare his assets, despite ascending to power on promises of openness and integrity. The silence is not only troubling; it is a betrayal of democratic norms. What is there to hide? If this administration is unwilling to meet even the most elementary standards of public accountability, it forfeits the moral authority to speak on behalf of the national interest.

3. Constitutional Overreach: A Government That Ignores Its Own People

When the administration attempted to push through constitutional amendments without broad public consultation, the people responded with outrage. Civil society, legal experts, and citizens across the political spectrum condemned the process as exclusionary and partisan. The government ignored them until the Constitutional Court intervened. That is not leadership in the national interest. That is an attempted power grab masquerading as reform.

National Interest as a Shield for Political Self-Interest

In this broader context, President Hichilema’s sudden interest in national unity and dignity, conveniently centered around the remains of a political rival, should raise alarm. What exactly has changed? Why is the voice of the people only acknowledged when it fits into a curated narrative? Why now?

This is not about mourning. It is about messaging. It is not about respect. It is about rewriting the story.

4. Disrespecting the Deceased: A Violation of the Most Basic Human Dignity

Perhaps the most disturbing element in this episode is the outright defiance of President Lungu’s final wish that President Hichilema play no role in his funeral. This was not hearsay. It was a clearly stated desire, echoed by his family and spokesperson.

Yet rather than respect this solemn and deeply personal request, the president has insisted on his involvement. When the family sought to bury their loved one abroad, fearing that returning the remains to Zambia would result in President Hichilema hijacking the funeral, as previously demonstrated, the president responded not with understanding but with litigation. Suing a grieving family in a foreign court is not an act of leadership. It is an act of political coercion cloaked in the language of unity.

This is not the behavior of a statesman. It is the behavior of someone attempting to control the stage, the script, and the applause at any cost.

When the Public Starts Asking Deeper Questions

Now, with the president’s unwavering insistence on presiding over funeral proceedings where he is clearly unwelcome, public speculation has begun to mount. When a sitting president goes to extraordinary lengths to involve himself in a funeral from which he was expressly asked to abstain, and overrides both the will of the deceased and the pleas of a grieving family, should anyone be surprised when people begin asking: Why?

In the absence of clear and credible justification, the public is left to fill the vacuum. And in that vacuum, whispers have begun to grow louder. Questions are being asked about ritualistic motives, deeper symbolic meanings, and intentions that may extend far beyond mere ceremony. Is it fair to blame the public for wondering? Is it unjustified paranoia, or is it a natural response to actions that defy logic and decency?

When leadership is opaque and motives appear inconsistent with principle, suspicion is not a symptom. It is a consequence.

A Final Word: The Public Will Not Be Fooled

True national interest is not wielded as a weapon against critics or used as a spotlight for political performance. It must guide leadership in hard decisions, including economic policy, transparency, public accountability, and ethical governance.

Until President Hichilema and his administration demonstrate that kind of integrity and consistency, any invocation of national interest will be rightly seen for what it is: a hollow phrase used selectively to justify the unjustifiable

In this case, the hollowness is deafening. It echoes with manipulation, disrespect, and a disturbing obsession with control, even in death.

Zambia deserves better. And the Zambian people will not forget.