Zambian ex-president to be buried in South Africa after funeral row
Lungu's family on Wednesday stopped his body from being repatriated from South Africa, where he died in hospital on June 5, after it emerged that President Hakainde Hichilema planned to receive it upon arrival against the late leader's wishes.
In response, Hichilema cut short an extended period of national mourning for Lungu, whom he replaced in 2021 after winning elections.
Lungu's funeral and burial "will take place here in South Africa, in accordance with the family's wishes for a private ceremony", spokesman Makebi Zulu said in a statement.
"The Lungu family continues to seek peace and unity amongst fellow Zambians during this time," the statement said, thanking the South African government for its "non-interference and respect of the... rights of the family".
The cause of the former president's death at the age of 68 was not announced but he had been receiving specialised treatment in a clinic in Pretoria, his Patriotic Front party said.
He was elected to lead the copper-rich southern African country in 2015 but lost elections six years later to Hichilema, from the United Party for National Development.
Since then, his wife and children have been charged with corruption and possession of suspected proceeds of crime in what the family has claimed to be part of a political vendetta.
Lungu's daughter Tasila Lungu was arrested in February on money laundering charges.
She was previously detained alongside her mother and sister on fraud charges in 2024.
Her brother, Dalitso, is also facing corruption charges.
An initial seven days of mourning for Lungu was extended by another nine days to end on June 23, the day after the government had scheduled a state funeral for.
But Hichilema ended the period of mourning four days early on Thursday in reaction to the family's refusal to allow the body to return.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
11 minutes ago
- IOL News
Political pressure mounts as McKenzie addresses racism controversy
In a storm of controversy, South African Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture, Gayton McKenzie, has vehemently rejected allegations of racism leveled against him, calling them nothing more than a political smear campaign aimed at discrediting him. In a storm of controversy, South African Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture, Gayton McKenzie, has vehemently rejected allegations of racism leveled against him, calling them nothing more than a political smear campaign aimed at discrediting him. Minister of Sport, Arts, and Culture Gayton McKenzie finds himself at the centre of a heated political debate after past remarks resurfaced, prompting calls from opposition parties and civil groups for accountability and reflection on leadership standards. McKenzie has vehemently denied allegations of racism, branding them as politically-motivated smear attempts. In a social media post, McKenzie expressed that accusations of racism are unfounded and counter to his life experiences and beliefs. 'I'm the son of a black woman; I have children with a black woman,' he stated, insisting that he has 'fought all my life for the same treatment between black and coloured people because we fought the same struggle.' McKenzie emphasised his commitment to advocating for coloured communities, who he claims lack the privileges afforded to black citizens in South Africa, despite sharing in the collective struggle against apartheid. His comments come on the heels of reactions from various political parties such as the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), who have called for McKenzie's immediate resignation over what they term 'hateful, racist remarks' from his past. The EFF has invoked a double standard, noting his outrage over derogatory comments made about coloured people on the podcast 'Open Chats'. McKenzie, while correct in condemning those remarks, faces scrutiny for his own previous statements and the perceived hypocrisy in his calls for accountability. Addressing the past, McKenzie acknowledged having done 'insensitive, stupid and hurtful things' in his youth, referring to them as foolish troll-like behaviour and expressing regret. 'I cringe when seeing them, and I am truly sorry for that,' he noted, pledging to cooperate with any investigations into his conduct. The African Transformation Movement (ATM) has also taken steps to challenge McKenzie's ministerial position, with Vuyo Zungula filing a formal complaint addressing derogatory language he allegedly used against black South Africans. Zungula's statement indicated that McKenzie's past tweets reflect a severe disregard for the ethical and moral tenets of a democratic society. 'I write to lodge an urgent and formal complaint to the Presidency, Parliament, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests against the Honourable Minister of Sports, Arts and Culture, Mr Gayton McKenzie. Resurfaced tweets authored by the minister contain racially derogatory slurs directed at black South Africans, language that is both indefensible and deeply corrosive to the principles upon which our democracy is built. This is not a matter of political rivalry or petty offence. It is a matter of ethics, constitutional duty, and the moral fabric of the Republic.' Moreover, Operation Dudula has also condemned McKenzie's alleged remarks, declaring them entirely contrary to the values South Africa stands for, especially given his role in the Department of Sport, Arts, and Culture. The organisation stressed the importance of leadership, which promotes inclusivity and cohesion within a diverse society. 'The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture is tasked with a crucial mandate to provide leadership to the sport, arts, and culture sector with a specific focus on accelerating its transformation, leading nation building and social cohesion through social transformation, and preserving, developing, and promoting the cultural and linguistic diversity that defines our nation. These responsibilities require leadership that is committed to fostering an inclusive and cohesive society, something that McKenzie's history of racially insensitive remarks has clearly shown he is incapable of doing.' Saturday Star
TimesLIVE
41 minutes ago
- TimesLIVE
Are we brave enough to finish what 1956 began for the women's movement?
Nearly 70 years after the historic march on Pretoria, South African women have made remarkable gains in education and achievement. Yet they remain underrepresented in leadership, face persistent violence and are too often excluded from the spaces where critical decisions are made. South Africa again paused for Women's Day this past weekend. There were speeches and televised tributes to the heroines of 1956, the women who marched on Pretoria and declared: 'Wathint' Abafazi, Wathint' Imbokodo!' (You strike a woman, you strike a rock). Their courage laid the foundation for our democratic freedom. However, nearly 70 years later, we must ask a difficult question. Do South African women truly have as much to celebrate as we claim, or have we grown so accustomed to ceremony that we mistake it for progress? Consider this contradiction. South African women lead in education. About 13.1% of women aged 25 to 64 hold tertiary qualifications, compared with 12.3% of men (Stats SA). A landmark study after the 2008 matric cohort found that females were 56% more likely to complete an undergraduate qualification and 66% more likely to earn a bachelor's degree than their male peers. Fewer women have a voice in shaping the laws, budgets and policies that govern the nation, despite constituting more than half the population. This is more than a gap in representation; it is a profound waste of talent and potential Yet when ambition meets power, the story changes. Only four of the JSE Top 40 companies are led by female CEOs, and women hold only 23% of executive roles, a proportion that is declining (Just Share report). According to the Labour Research Service 'studies suggest companies with more women in executive positions or as CEOs tend to outperform their peers in terms of profitability, market share and overall shareholder returns'. Excluding women from leadership is not only unjust, but also bad for business. Political representation has also regressed. After the 2024 elections, women held only 43% of seats in the National Assembly (Gender Links), down from 46% in 2020. At the Cabinet level, women account for about 43.8% of ministerial positions, a decline from the gender parity briefly achieved in 2019 (World Bank Gender Data). Fewer women have a voice in shaping the laws, budgets and policies that govern the nation, despite constituting more than half the population. This is more than a gap in representation; it is a profound waste of talent and potential. Women outperform men in education, yet they remain underrepresented in leadership and influence. The result is not only the betrayal of individual ambition but a loss for the entire nation. Alongside the inequalities lies a crisis that statistics cannot fully capture. South Africa remains one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman. Between July and September 2024, 957 women were murdered, 1,567 survived attempted murder, 14,366 suffered assault GBH, and more than 10,000 rapes were reported to police. When the SA Police Service released its official crime statistics for the fourth quarter of 2024/25, data on gender-based violence (GBV), including murder and assault of women and children, was omitted entirely (IOL). The message, whether intended or not, is that it has become normal. If women's pain is not even counted, how can it ever be solved? What does that omission say about us as a nation? As a survivor of (GBV), I have seen first-hand how laws mean little without enforcement. Paper promises do not protect women; action does. GBV must be tracked and addressed with the same urgency as murder or robbery, not hidden from view. Too often, silence around this violence is normalised. A woman who has been beaten is asked: 'What did you do to deserve it?' Such questions shift blame away from perpetrators and keep women trapped in cycles of fear and shame. Progress is not only limited by systemic barriers, sometimes, it is also shaped by how we as women treat one another. I have been fortunate to have incredible female mentors who opened doors and amplified my voice. Yet I have also felt the sting of being excluded or undermined by other women. It is not easy to admit, but these moments are real. Competition, fear and the belief there is room for only a few women at the top can quietly erode solidarity. True progress is never a solitary climb. It happens when one hand reaches back to pull another woman forward, knowing power shared is power multiplied. If equality is truly our goal, we must challenge the patterns and choose to rise together, creating a culture where every woman's success opens the door for the next. Women must have equal access to capital, fair pay and relief from the invisible burden of unpaid care work that limits their freedom. Representation must finally reflect reality. Women are 51% of South Africa, and our boardrooms and legislatures should reflect that fact. The women of 1956 marched because they had had enough of being ignored. They were not celebrating their power; they were claiming it. Nearly 70 years later, we must decide whether we are content with speeches and hashtags or whether we are prepared to demand something more meaningful. We owe more than tributes and luncheons to the next generation. Somewhere in this country, a young girl is standing at the edge of her future, full of promise yet uncertain of the world that awaits her. Our responsibility is to ensure her intelligence leads to real opportunity, that her voice carries into every room where decisions are made and her safety is never negotiable. Before we celebrate, we should pause and ask ourselves: Do we treat women as true equals in every space we occupy? Do we continue to see women through outdated notions of weakness, or do we recognise them first and foremost as equal human beings? Do we speak out against the sexism and violence that continue to shape daily life, or do we stay silent? Do we teach boys and girls a girl is a child first, before being seen through the lens of gender, and a woman's role is not confined to the kitchen or the maternity ward? Are we willing to accept a country where half the population continues to wait for its turn to lead? The march on Pretoria was a turning point, but the work they began remains unfinished. The greatest tribute we can pay those women is not only through speeches or ceremonies, but by building a South Africa where power, opportunity and safety belong to everyone. That is the freedom they dreamed of. It is the freedom we owe to the next generation. • Chodeva is a strategic communications and entrepreneurship specialist with more than 25 years of cross-industry experience. She is passionate about advancing equality in leadership.
IOL News
41 minutes ago
- IOL News
Navigating Tensions: AFRICOM's Role in SADC's Security Landscape
ZAMBIAN President Hakainde Hichilema, Angola President João Lourenço , US President Joe Biden, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) President Felix Tshisekedi, and Tanzania Vice-President Philip Isdor Mpango at the Lobito Corridor Trans-Africa Summit held in Benguela, Angola on December 4, 2024. Image: AFP Dr. Sizo Nkala The US Africa Command (AFRICOM) – the combatant command responsible for carrying out the US Department of Defence's military operations, exercises, and security cooperation in Africa – could sow divisions within the southern African region. The leadership of the AFRICOM, including the Deputy Commander Lieutenant General John Brennan and Ambassador Robert Scott, made what seemed to be successful visits to Angola and Namibia at the end of July. In both countries, the parties discussed mutual security interests, including promoting stability in southern Africa, tackling wildlife and timber trafficking, drug cartels and terrorism, which are a threat to regional peace and stability. The visits followed the Obangame Joint Military Exercise conducted in Cape Verde in May, in which both Namibia and Angola took part alongside 22 other African countries and the US. In Angola, it coincided with the Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) where Angolan and US troops were conducting live fire exercises aimed at improving combat readiness and the interoperability of allied forces. With the US-funded Lobito Corridor, a railway track which will connect Angola's Lobito port to more inland countries like Zambia and the DRC, Angola is central to US economic interests in southern Africa. The AFRICOM leaders emphasised that they seek to work with African countries in a manner that enhances their sovereignty and autonomy rather than their dependency. This dovetails with AFRICOM's doctrine of 'African Solutions to African Problems'. With its deeper knowledge and experience in maritime security, counterinsurgency activities, and peacekeeping operations, AFRICOM could be a valuable partner for states in the region dealing with violent conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Mozambique's Cabo Delgado province. In flaunting its credentials and values, the AFRICOM leaders could not miss an opportunity to throw shade at US geopolitical rivals – China and Russia – whom it accused of treating African militaries as their training aides. However, the mood was decidedly different for AFRICOM's relations with another southern African country. Early in August, the US Department of Defence decided to cancel the Shared Accord military exercises between the US and South Africa. This was because of a disagreement over allowing armed American soldiers to guard the US aircraft. It is reported that the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) preferred that its personnel protect the aircraft while the DoD insisted on having its soldiers take that responsibility. The DoD argued that the Status of Forces Agreement signed between Pretoria and Washington in 1999 allowed US security personnel to guard US assets. This marks yet another negative turn in the bilateral relations between the two countries, which have deteriorated rapidly since the beginning of Donald Trump's second presidency in January. The latest cancellation is the third time the US has withdrawn from planned security cooperation activities with South Africa since last year. In 2024, the US pulled out of the African Aerospace and Defence Expo and also decided against docking a US Navy ship in Cape Town. This was partly because of South Africa's refusal to sign the so-called 'Article 98', which enjoins countries to sign an agreement to protect the US security personnel from arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC) when on their territory. The US is not a member of the ICC. South Africa and AFRICOM have always had a frosty relationship since its establishment in 2007. The former vociferously campaigned against the establishment of an American military base in Africa. Pretoria was of the view that AFRICOM was an imperialistic venture, and a keen association with it would be seen as being a lapdog of American imperialism in Africa. This stance was also in part an effort by the African National Congress (ANC) to differentiate itself from the Apartheid government, which had no issues protecting the interests of the US in the region - sometimes through destabilising neighbouring countries. AFRICOM's less-than-cordial relations with South Africa will undermine the effectiveness of its security cooperation with the region. South Africa is a regional powerhouse with the strongest and most well-equipped military in southern Africa. The country is an active participant in peacekeeping operations in southern Africa, having recently contributed the bulk of the troops in the Southern African Development Community (SADC)'s peacekeeping missions in Mozambique and the DRC. Without Pretoria's cooperation, AFRICOM's ventures will have a limited impact. The SADC region is an indivisible security considering the litany of transnational security threats it faces. As such, any engagement with a major external actor like AFRICOM would be more effective if done on a regional rather than a national and bilateral level. Just last year, on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa expressed his worries to the Russian President Vladimir Putin over AFRICOM's close cooperation with AFRICOM. He asked that Russia intensify security cooperation with his country as a counterweight to the West's projection of power in neighbouring countries. If the regional leaders do not address this, the region could soon be divided into two security spheres of influence – one controlled by the US and the other controlled by China and Russia. * Dr. Sizo Nkala is a Research Fellow at the University of Johannesburg's Centre for Africa-China Studies. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
