Lungu family appeals repatriation order
By George Zulu and Tony Nkhoma
LATE former president Edgar Lungu’s family has appealed the judgment of the Pretoria High Court which ordered the repatriation of his remains to Zambia for a State funeral and burial.
According to an application for leave to appeal, the Lungu family said the full High Court bench erred in law in granting the Zambian government the power to repatriate the remains of Lungu against the wishes of the family and that of the former president.
“The full Court erred in granting prayers 1 to 7 of the order. The full Court erred in granting prayer 4 of the order, which prayer does not align with the purported agreement as set out in Annexure “FAA7”. In that it does not make provision for the family to repatriate the remains of the Late President Lungu,” the family submitted.
The family said the judgment, which relied on the purported agreement, failed to spell out that President Hakainde Hichilema should not be part of the funeral.
“FAA7” did not set out any involvement of the current President in the funeral and burial of the Late President Lungu, yet the order implies his involvement. The full Court erred in granting prayer 4 of the order, relying on an alleged agreement, when the relief sought was never framed as specific performance. The relief sought was for a declaratory of rights,” the family said.
The family stated that at no time did the Hichilema administration take interest in former President Lungu’s wellbeing after his removal from office.
“President Lungu’s said his wishes were that in the event of his death, those who never showed any interest in his welfare while he was alive should not be allowed to pretend to be interested in his welfare at death. It is important to emphasise that the family is proceeding based on the guarantees given by the Government of the Republic of Zambia that they will not deviate from the undertakings or betray the trust of the family and the wishes of the late President Lungu,” the family submitted.
The family submitted that it was shocking that despite the evidence before the Court, the bench went ahead to make a different factual finding contrary to the common cause of the matter.
“The full Court correctly found that the submission and case of the Respondent was that a tentative programme was drawn up by the family, Annexure “FAA7”. Despite this common cause fact the Full Court proceeded to make a different factual finding, contrary to the common cause facts that Annexure “FAA7” marked a tentative proposal that the Respondent never accepted. The Full Court erred in failing to consider the full set of events between the parties for the dates of 10 June 2025 to 18 June 2025, specifically, the further draft programmes sent from the Respondent to the Applicants. Which facts, objectively show that as at 10 June 2025, there was not consensus reached on any agreement. The Full Court failed to correctly apply the test as set out in Plascon vs Evans on the facts of the matter. The Full Court ought to have found that it cannot make a final finding on whether an agreement was reached or not, based on the very limited facts as set out in the Founding Affidavit,” they submitted.
