By 
Welcome to Justice O’ Metre, an independent tracker on high profile cases affecting mostly politically-exposed persons within the Zambian judicial system, the rule of law and the administration of justice for common good.
JULY REVIEW
July proved tense as Zambia grappled with high-profile legal battles and political controversies. The burial dispute over late former president Edgar Lungu deepened, the Speaker of the National Assembly faced a constitutional challenge, and courtroom drama unfolded in cases involving corruption, disorderly conduct, and fraud.
Government vs. Esther Lungu
July was largely dominated by the intense legal and political tussle between the Zambian government and the family of the late former President Edgar Lungu over where he should be laid to rest.
Esther Lungu, the former president’s widow, made public revelations through court affidavits filed before the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, South Africa. She disclosed that one of her husband’s last wishes, before undergoing surgery in South Africa on June 3, was that President Hakainde Hichilema neither attend his funeral nor view his body.
Esther Lungu stated that during his time in South Africa, her husband consistently expressed his desire for President Hichilema to be excluded from funeral arrangements, remarking, “One who torments another in life must not preside over the funeral in death.” She contended that Lungu had not traveled to South Africa purely for medical treatment but fled the country due to a very real fear of political persecution. She claimed he left Zambia without government consent in January 2025, anticipating medical neglect and harassment motivated by political vendettas.
Medical reports attached to court papers indicated that the former president was diagnosed with terminal oesophageal cancer while in South Africa, a condition which might have been treatable had he been permitted to seek care earlier. The family opposed the Zambian government’s application to repatriate the remains and insisted on burying him in South Africa, which they argued would grant him peace away from what they described as “torment” endured under the current administration.
On the other hand, the government, represented by Attorney-General Mulilo Kabesha, maintained that under the former Presidents’ Benefits Act, it held the legal authority to determine the burial arrangements of former heads of state. The state argued that Mr. Lungu’s acceptance of benefits under this Act implied consent to a state funeral conducted in line with Zambian customs and traditions.
Contrary to the family’s position, the government asserted that although his benefits were suspended when Mr. Lungu re-entered active politics, they were reinstated upon his death, thus restoring the state’s entitlement. The Attorney-General’s submissions in the Pretoria High Court emphasized that that no will or legal document specified burial wishes, and that the state’s right to organize a state funeral superseded family claims.
The dispute remained unresolved by the end of July, keeping public attention riveted on the ongoing legal battle that exposed deep political fault lines within Zambia.
LAZ V Speaker Mutti
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) took a bold step by petitioning the Constitutional Court to declare the Speaker of the National Assembly, Nelly Mutti, in breach of the Constitution. This followed Mutti’s controversial ruling on July 9 that permitted continued legislative proceedings on the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025, despite a prior Constitutional Court injunction halting the process.
LAZ argued that the Speaker’s decision blatantly violated the June 27 ruling of the Constitutional Court, which had found the amendment process unconstitutional due to procedural lapses. The association warned that the Speaker’s actions risked inflicting “irreparable harm” on Zambia’s constitutional order, democratic governance, and the rule of law by undermining judicial authority and disrupting the balance of powers.
Among the key complaints was that Mutti had wrongly invoked Parliament’s exclusive cognizance doctrine under Article 77 to sidestep constitutional compliance requirements, including publication in the Government Gazette and meaningful public consultation mandated under Article 79.
LAZ sought a declaration that the Speaker’s ruling was null and void, and requested an interim suspension of all parliamentary proceedings related to the bill pending full constitutional compliance. The petition underscored the importance of respecting judicial decisions as a cornerstones of Zambia’s democracy.
Wanziya Chirwa V DPP
July saw the Economic and Financial Crimes Court uphold a three-year sentence against Wanziya Chirwa, wife of former Home Affairs Minister Stephen Kampyongo, for possessing property suspected to be proceeds of crime. Chirwa had been in custody since September 2024, following her conviction on charges related to unexplained ownership of real estate and vehicles worth more than K26 million.
The court confirmed the Lusaka Magistrate’s Court was correct in finding Chirwa guilty due to her failure to prove lawful acquisition of the contested assets. The High Court stressed that once the prosecution demonstrated reasonable grounds to suspect illicit sources, the burden of proof shifted to Chirwa to disprove the allegations—a burden she failed to meet.
Chirwa had contested the evidential burden shifting to her, but the court ruled that the legal principle was correctly applied, maintaining the integrity of the prosecution’s case.
The People V Faith Musonda
Journalist Faith Musonda was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment and fined K24 for idle and disorderly conduct after she was found trespassing late at night at Community House, the private residence of President Hakainde Hichilema. Initially charged with espionage, the charge was later reduced.
Magistrate Irene Wishimanga condemned Musonda for failing to follow appropriate channels to raise her grievances with the First Lady Mutinta Hichilema. The court also doubted Musonda’s claim of destitution, highlighting the luxury vehicle she drove to the premises.
Police reports detailed that on July 1, 2025, Musonda arrived unannounced around 11 pm, refusing to leave despite advice from officers. She was subsequently escorted to a police station where she was detained after refusing a breathalyzer test and custody book signature.
The People V Binwell Mpundu
The trial of Nkana independent Member of Parliament Binwell Mpundu, charged with seditious practices, failed to commence due to his reported ill health. Mpundu faced a single count related to a social media post in December 2024, allegedly inciting violence and urging politicians to arm themselves for self-defense following an attack on opposition leader Sean Tembo.
Surety Christopher Kang’ombe presented a medical certificate to the court, leading Magistrate Chibwili to adjourn the case until August 18, 2025, allowing Mpundu time to recover and enter a plea.
The People V Cryford Chuuba
Businessman Cryford Chuuba of Kasalu Village appeared in court accused of swindling Zambia Police Service spokesperson Rea Hamoonga of K159,000 in a cattle scam.
Chuuba allegedly promised delivery of dozens of cattle between November and early December 2024, but failed to deliver, with suspicions that the cattle never existed.
The case drew public interest due to the complainant’s high-profile position. On July 28, lawyers for both parties confirmed ongoing negotiations for a possible out-of-court settlement, postponing further court proceedings.
The People V Stardy Mwale
The State entered a nolle prosequi in a corruption case involving former Defence Permanent Secretary Stardy Mwale and businessman Clever Mpoha. Mwale faced charges of corrupt practices as a public officer, and Mpoha faced related corruption charges. The withdrawal followed a similar move in a separate case involving procurement irregularities related to a Gulfstream G650-ER jet.
Despite the withdrawals, Mwale and five others were re-arrested shortly thereafter in connection with related investigations, underscoring ongoing complexities in Zambia’s anti-corruption efforts.
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