South Africa’s Constitutional Court has dismissed an application by the family of former Zambian President Edgar Chagwa Lungu to appeal directly against a Pretoria High Court order concerning the repatriation of his remains. The ruling, delivered this week, reaffirmed that litigants must respect judicial hierarchy and cannot bypass lower courts to gain access to the country’s highest tribunal.
In its ruling, the Court stated: “The Constitutional Court has considered the application for leave to appeal directly to it and has concluded that no case has been made out for a direct appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal must be refused.” The order further confirmed: “Leave to appeal directly to this Court is refused.”
The decision was not based on the substance of the burial dispute, but on procedure. Direct access to the Constitutional Court is permitted only in cases of exceptional urgency or issues of major constitutional significance. The judges concluded that the Lungu family had not met that standard.
As a result, the Pretoria High Court’s order directing that Lungu’s remains be repatriated to Zambia for burial remains valid. The family must now seek leave to appeal in the Gauteng High Court. If unsuccessful, they may approach the Supreme Court of Appeal. Only after exhausting these stages can the Constitutional Court consider the case again. The ruling reinforces judicial hierarchy and makes clear that litigants cannot “jump the queue” but must follow the prescribed step-by-step legal process.
For the Lungu family, the ruling is a setback. It limits immediate legal options and removes the shield of Constitutional Court intervention. While the family can still pursue appeals, the process is lengthy and may not stop enforcement of the Pretoria order in the near term.
For the Zambian government, the decision strengthens its position. Officials have insisted that former presidents must be buried at Embassy Park in Lusaka, the official burial site for heads of state. President Hakainde Hichilema has reaffirmed this stance, describing it as both a legal requirement and a symbol of national unity. Still, tensions remain. The Zambian government announced that it was engaging the family in dialogue. However, family lawyer Makebi Zulu told reporters that the family was “in prayer” and not taking part in negotiations. The contrasting statements highlight the mistrust surrounding the matter.
The dispute has sparked public debate. Some analysts warn that legal battles may delay the burial for months. Observers note that while the family sought a shortcut to halt repatriation, the Constitutional Court’s decision sends a clear signal that due process must be followed. Until all appeal options are exhausted, the Pretoria High Court’s order stands, though enforcement remains suspended. Lungu’s remains remain in legal uncertainty, a situation that underscores the overlap of law, politics, and legacy.
The Lungu family must now file for leave to appeal in the High Court. If that fails, they may escalate to the Supreme Court of Appeal before returning to the Constitutional Court. This layered process could prolong the dispute, but it remains the only legal path forward. For now, the Pretoria order remains binding, but the case itself is unresolved. The Constitutional Court’s refusal closes one legal door, but the broader battle continues, shaping the final chapter in Edgar Lungu’s legacy and raising questions about law, tradition, and state authority in Zambia.