By 
In an unexpected turn of events, the family of late former Zambian president, Edgar Lungu, has entered discussions with the Zambian government over the repatriation of his body for a state funeral.
Appearing before the Pretoria High Court, the family’s newly engaged lawyer, advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC, announced that both sides had agreed to postpone the hearing of the family’s leave-to-appeal application until Monday, August 18, 2025, to allow negotiations to proceed.
He said the court would be notified if a settlement was reached.
Ngcukaitobi’s entry into the case has added considerable legal weight.
One of South Africa’s most celebrated human rights lawyers, he is renowned for his fearless advocacy in constitutional and rights-based matters.
He has been at the forefront of landmark legal battles—from exposing state capture under Jacob Zuma to defending President Cyril Ramaphosa in the CR17 campaign funding case.
Internationally, his recent appearance at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where he represented South Africa in its genocide case against Israel, cemented his reputation as a constitutionalist with global standing.
The Lungu case, already steeped in political intrigue, could now become a defining test of constitutional governance in the region.
With Ngcukaitobi on board, the courtroom battle is expected to intensify, drawing even greater attention across Africa.
This latest development follows the Zambian government’s successful application on August 8, 2025, for a court order authorising the release of Lungu’s remains to Zambian authorities for a state funeral.
Lungu, who died on June 5, 2025, has remained at the Two Mountains Mortuary in South Africa, which is the eighth applicant in the case.
The family lodged an application for leave to appeal, halting enforcement of the repatriation order.
They argued that the proposed burial arrangements contradict Lungu’s final wishes and were never approved by his relatives.
In court filings, the family listed 17 grounds of appeal against the ruling by Justices Ledwaba, Mudau, and Potterill, citing misapplication of legal principles, reliance on a “tentative” funeral programme, and failure to recognise the absence of consensus on burial plans.
They further accused the Zambian government of acting in bad faith by misrepresenting that the current president would not be involved in the funeral—a claim they say invalidated any prior understanding.
The family insists that enforcing the disputed arrangements would cause emotional distress and violate constitutional rights to dignity, freedom of belief, and cultural expression under South African law.
WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.
Comments