Beyond The Grave: Edgar Lungu, Hakainde Hichilema, And The Political Rift That Outlived A Presidency
The Mt Kenya Times 
Edgar Chagwa Lungu
By: Silas Mwaudasheni Nande
A Farewell Divided
When Edgar Chagwa Lungu, Zambia’s sixth president, passed away in Pretoria on June 5, 2025, the announcement did more than stir the expected waves of national grief; it dramatically reopened a deep political wound that had festered for nearly a decade, refusing to heal. His death, occurring far from his homeland, marked the poignant culmination of a presidency that had been mired in considerable controversy and a post-presidency period relentlessly embattled by palpable bitterness and mutual animosity. Now, the profoundly impactful decision by his immediate family to lay him to rest in South Africa has ignited an exceptionally fierce and widespread public debate across Zambia, casting an intense, unforgiving light on the complex, often combustible, and ultimately tragic relationship that defined the interactions between Lungu and his successor, President Hakainde Hichilema. This unprecedented choice for a former head of state’s final resting place has forced a national introspection into the lingering divisions.
This article delves deeply into tracing the intricate roots of a profound political rivalry that, over the years, not only transformed the very fabric of Zambian political discourse but also profoundly shaped and, at times, fractured the nation’s sense of identity, ultimately influencing one of the most contentious and emotionally charged presidential farewells in the country’s entire democratic history. It seeks to unpack the layers of animosity, the pivotal moments of conflict, and the enduring legacy of a political chasm that continued to widen even after one of its central figures had departed.
Origins of a Deepening Divide
The nascent seeds of deep enmity and distrust between Edgar Lungu and Hakainde Hichilema were firmly germinated in the turbulent and highly contested 2016 presidential election. Lungu, then serving as the incumbent and seeking a second full term under the banner of the ruling Patriotic Front (PF) party, narrowly secured victory over Hichilema, the formidable challenger from the opposition United Party for National Development (UPND). This victory was immediately shrouded in widespread allegations of significant electoral fraud and irregularities. Hichilema, incensed and steadfastly refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the election outcome, defiantly labeled the entire process a “stolen mandate.” This powerful and unyielding declaration from Hichilema set an immediate, uncompromising tone for what would become years of intensely adversarial and deeply polarized politics, irrevocably shaping the national narrative and the relationship between the two most prominent political figures.
The simmering rivalry between the two political titans escalated dramatically and reached a searing boiling point in April 2017, following an incident where Hichilema’s motorcade allegedly failed to yield right-of-way to the presidential convoy.3 This seemingly minor traffic infraction spiraled into an extraordinary legal and political crisis when Hichilema was swiftly arrested and subsequently charged with the severe, non-bailable offense of treason. He then endured a gruelling and controversial detention period, spending over 120 days incarcerated.4 The international community, including numerous human rights organizations and foreign governments, widely condemned the arrest as an egregious overreach of state power, with Amnesty International notably declaring Hichilema a “prisoner of conscience.” While Lungu’s government vehemently defended its actions, citing paramount national security concerns and the need to uphold the rule of law, a significant portion of both the local and international public perceived the arrest as a blatant and politically motivated attempt to criminalize legitimate dissent and silence a prominent opposition voice.
Following Hichilema’s eventual release from prison, which occurred after significant international pressure and legal proceedings, there were conspicuously no discernible reconciliatory gestures or public displays of rapprochement between the two leaders. A particularly striking and symbolic snub that echoed through public speeches, political rallies, and even parliamentary debates was Hichilema’s consistent refusal to refer to Lungu by his official title of “President.” This deliberate and public omission underscored the depth of his conviction that Lungu’s presidency lacked legitimate electoral foundation. Their increasingly overt and mutually acknowledged disdain for one another progressively became a defining, persistent undercurrent that not only characterized Zambia’s political landscape but also permeated daily life and public discourse, creating a pervasive atmosphere of mistrust and division.
The 2021 Power Shift and an Uneasy Transition
In August 2021, Zambians headed to the polls with a quiet yet profoundly decisive urgency, reflecting a deep desire for change that had been building for years.5 The election witnessed an unprecedented surge in voter turnout, particularly among the nation’s youth demographic, signaling a widespread public appetite for a new direction. Hakainde Hichilema’s subsequent victory was not merely a win; it was resounding and emphatic, as he secured over 60% of the total vote. This landslide win marked one of the most dramatic and unexpected shifts in power in recent African electoral history, shattering the incumbent’s grasp on power and ushering in a new political era.
Despite the obligatory public displays of civility and decorum during the official handover ceremony, an underlying current of palpable tension visibly lingered between the outgoing and incoming administrations. Lungu, initially, adopted a notably low public profile after his electoral defeat, seemingly retreating from the immediate political spotlight. However, by late 2022, he began a gradual but determined resurfacing into the realm of public political commentary. His increasingly vocal criticisms frequently centered on accusations that the new Hichilema administration was systematically persecuting his former allies and key figures from the Patriotic Front. His assertion that Zambia was “sliding into dictatorship under the guise of democracy” quickly became a potent rallying cry, resonating deeply with loyalists of the Patriotic Front and coalescing a significant segment of the opposition.
In response to Lungu’s renewed political activism, the Hichilema government swiftly accused the former president of violating the provisions of the Former Presidents’ Benefits Act, which stipulates that former heads of state should refrain from engaging in active politics. In a highly contentious move, Hichilema’s administration took the drastic step of suspending Lungu’s retirement benefits. This suspension included the withdrawal of his dedicated security detail, the cessation of housing provisions, and the revocation of diplomatic travel privileges – effectively stripping him of the various entitlements and perks he had once enjoyed as a former head of state. This action, unprecedented in its scope, further inflamed the already tense relationship between the two political camps.
Lungu, in turn, staunchly maintained that his renewed public engagement was not a violation of protocol but rather a necessary act of defending Zambia’s nascent democracy against what he perceived as authoritarian tendencies from the new government. He framed his actions as a patriotic duty to speak truth to power. However, his critics, including a broad spectrum of civil society watchdogs and political analysts, vehemently argued that his return to active politics was inherently destabilizing for the nation and, moreover, deeply hypocritical given his own administration’s past actions. For ordinary Zambians, this escalating dispute between the former and current presidents became a stark and increasingly concerning symbol of a deepening partisan polarization within the country, a chasm that appeared to offer no clear or readily apparent off-ramp towards reconciliation or unity.
Legal Tensions and Family on Trial
The escalating political conflict between the two former adversaries soon broadened its scope, inevitably ensnaring Edgar Lungu’s immediate family members and subjecting them to intense legal scrutiny. In 2023, his wife, Esther Lungu, faced serious charges alleging the irregular acquisition of state land and the laundering of significant public funds through what were purportedly charitable foundations. Concurrently, several of Lungu’s children found themselves implicated in various customs violations and were scrutinized over the acquisition of luxury assets, the origins of which were brought into question by the new administration’s anti-corruption drive. These high-profile legal actions against his family significantly heightened the emotional stakes of the ongoing political feud.
Unsurprisingly, the Patriotic Front, Lungu’s former party, vehemently condemned these arrests and charges, denouncing them outright as politically motivated “witch hunts” designed to harass and discredit the former first family. In stark contrast, the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) adamantly insisted that the law was simply being applied equally and impartially to all citizens, regardless of their past political standing. Yet, in the court of public perception, the timing and nature of these arrests often appeared remarkably targeted, leading many to believe they were more an act of political vendetta than a genuine exercise in impartial vigilance against corruption, further eroding public trust in the independence of the justice system.
Adding another complex layer to the legal battle, in 2024, the Constitutional Court delivered a highly controversial ruling that declared Lungu eligible to run in future elections, dramatically reversing its own previous, definitive stance on the matter. This decision sent shockwaves through the legal and political communities. Legal experts and constitutional scholars widely decried the sudden reversal, noting that it closely followed a controversial reshuffling of senior judges within the judiciary, raising significant questions about judicial independence. President Hichilema’s conspicuous silence on the perceived lack of judicial independence following this ruling prompted widespread criticism, though he publicly maintained that “the judiciary speaks for itself,” implying non-interference. For Lungu’s ardent supporters, this eligibility ruling was hailed as a monumental vindication, affirming his right to participate in the democratic process. However, for his detractors and those concerned about the rule of law, it was a dangerous flashpoint that only served to reinforce profound fears of an impending constitutional crisis, with the judiciary seemingly bending to political pressures. Bolstered by this favourable ruling, Lungu began to subtly hint at a political comeback, even as worrying reports concerning his deteriorating health began to emerge, adding a poignant dimension to his political ambitions.
The Final Journey: Illness and Exile
As 2024 drew to a close, concerning reports began to emerge from sources close to Edgar Lungu’s family, indicating that the former president was battling a severe and progressively worsening degenerative heart condition. While detailed information remained deliberately sparse, it became increasingly apparent that his critical medical state necessitated advanced cardiovascular care, a level of specialized treatment that was, regrettably, unavailable within Zambia’s medical facilities. Tensions, already running high, flared dramatically when it was publicly revealed that Lungu had reportedly been denied official government clearance for international medical treatment that would have been sponsored by the state, as is typically accorded to former heads of state. This denial immediately sparked outrage among his supporters and further fueled accusations of political malice.
Consequently, with his medical trip privately funded, Lungu departed Zambia for Pretoria, South Africa, where he was immediately admitted to a highly specialized cardiovascular facility, underscoring the severity of his condition. During this period, persistent rumors swirled within political circles and among the public, suggesting that there had been deliberate and politically motivated delays in facilitating his medical evacuation. While the Zambian presidency vehemently denied any interference, attributing any delays to standard bureaucratic processes, some prominent figures within the opposition explicitly accused state security agencies of actively obstructing Lungu’s timely departure for life-saving treatment, deepening the narrative of persecution.
Tragically, on June 5, 2025, Edgar Lungu’s life came to an end in Pretoria – a city many miles removed from the iconic presidential hill in Lusaka and far from the vibrant capital city he had once governed.6 His death in foreign land served as a stark, symbolic reminder of the bitter political rift that had shadowed his final years, preventing him from seeking solace and healing in his own country.
A Funeral Disputed
Almost immediately following the announcement of Edgar Lungu’s death, a profound diplomatic and domestic impasse erupted, adding yet another contentious chapter to his complex legacy. The Zambian government promptly announced a national 10-day period of mourning and, in adherence to established protocol for a former head of state, unveiled comprehensive plans for a full state funeral, complete with elaborate military honors. The proposed arrangements included Lungu’s body lying in state at the National Assembly for public viewing and a solemn burial at the prestigious Embassy Park Presidential Burial Site, the designated resting place for Zambia’s former leaders. However, in a truly unprecedented and deeply symbolic move, the Lungu family unequivocally objected to these state-led arrangements.7
Speaking through their designated spokesperson, the family delivered a stunning revelation: the late president had, in his meticulously prepared last will and testament, explicitly requested not to be buried “under the care of any administration presided over by Hakainde Hichilema.” The family cited a confluence of reasons for this extraordinary request, including profound and long-standing security concerns, an entrenched mistrust of the current government, and a deeply personal and heartfelt desire for the former president to rest in a “place of healing, not hostility.” This declaration publicly exposed the raw, unhealed wounds of the political feud. Consequently, the Lungu family refused to release the body to Zambian authorities for repatriation and state burial.8 Instead, they coordinated directly with Pretoria-based funeral directors, bypassing official channels. On June 20, 2025, in a quiet yet defiantly symbolic act, Lungu was interred in a private ceremony at the Westpark Cemetery in South Africa.9 High-profile officials from the Patriotic Front were conspicuously in attendance, while the official Zambian government delegation was notably and pointedly absent, further underscoring the profound chasm between the former president’s loyalists and the current administration.
In response to the family’s actions and the private burial, President Hichilema, clearly signaling the government’s displeasure and a desire to move past the contentious issue, declared the national mourning period over two days earlier than initially planned. In a terse and carefully worded public address, Hichilema urged Zambian citizens to “honor the past by focusing on the future,” adding a pointed remark that “unity must not be sacrificed to ego.” The message was unambiguous: the nation needed to move on from the divisive legacy of the past. This pronouncement was met with mixed reactions; some perceived it as a statesmanlike call for national healing and forward-looking pragmatism, while others viewed it as cold, indifferent, and insensitive to the rawness of national grief and the deep emotional attachment many still held for the departed leader. Ultimately, the entire funeral process, from the family’s refusal to the private burial and the president’s truncated mourning period, became a poignant and undeniable mirror reflecting the nation’s unresolved wounds and deep-seated political divisions.
A Legacy of Division, and a Symbolic Burial
Edgar Lungu’s burial in South Africa marked a truly historical first for Zambia: never before had a former Zambian head of state been laid to rest outside the nation’s borders since its independence. This unprecedented event immediately drew significant comparisons to the contentious burial of Zimbabwe’s former leader, Robert Mugabe, whose own family had similarly resisted state burial plans, opting for a private interment over a public hero’s acre. The parallels highlighted a growing trend in African politics where personal and familial wishes clash with state protocol, especially when post-presidency relations are fraught.
To some Zambians, particularly his ardent supporters and those who felt disenfranchised by the current government, Lungu’s burial abroad was seen as a dignified and powerful assertion of autonomy – a final, poignant act of protest against what they perceived as persistent humiliation and persecution by the Hichilema administration. It was framed as a courageous choice to find peace away from political hostility. Conversely, for many others, including those aligned with the current government and a segment of the public who prioritized national symbolism, it was widely perceived as a profound betrayal of patriotism, an act that deprived the nation of collective closure and the symbolic reconciliation that a state funeral at home could have provided. This deeply split public opinion underscored the fragmented national identity that had emerged from the Lungu-Hichilema rivalry.
Across various platforms, Zambians from all political divides debated the issue fiercely and passionately. On social media, sentiments ranged dramatically from profound grief and sorrow at the loss of a former leader to outright vindication and relief, with some arguing that his legacy of division justified the unusual burial. Civil society groups, recognizing the potential for further national polarization, earnestly urged both political camps to rise above what they termed “petty vendettas.” They issued stark warnings that “a fractured past must not define a fractured future,” emphasizing the critical need for national unity and healing, lest the contentious burial exacerbate existing divisions.
Conclusion: What the Rift Reveals
The enduring political conflict between Edgar Lungu and Hakainde Hichilema was always far more than a mere personal animosity between two powerful individuals; it was a profound reflection of the high-stakes, intricate nature of Zambia’s ongoing democratic evolution. This rivalry laid bare the deep-seated truth that in Zambia, transitions of power carry not only immense symbolic weight but also significant structural implications, capable of reshaping the very foundations of governance and national identity. The consistent bitterness and lack of reconciliation between the two leaders highlighted the fragility of democratic norms when personal grudges intertwine with political authority, often overshadowing the crucial tenets of peaceful coexistence and respect for institutions.
Lungu’s unprecedented burial in foreign soil is thus far more than a simple logistical footnote in Zambia’s historical records. It stands as a powerful and somber national parable about the devastating cost of entrenched political grudges, illustrating how personal animosities can poison the well of public discourse and prevent national healing. It speaks to the inherent fragility of institutional memory, as the nation grapples with how to remember and honor a leader whose final act was one of deliberate separation from his homeland’s official embrace. Most profoundly, it underscores the deep, palpable yearning for unity that pervades a country which, despite its democratic progress, so often appears to bend and strain under the immense, persistent weight of its internal divisions and unresolved historical wounds. The decision to bury Lungu abroad forces Zambians to confront the very real consequences of sustained political animosity, extending beyond a president’s term and even beyond his life.
As Zambians collectively reflect on this extraordinary and deeply symbolic moment – a former president laid to rest far from the soil he once governed – a quiet, yet profoundly unsettling question continues to linger in the national consciousness: Can the nation genuinely bury its deep-seated enmities and move towards a more cohesive future, or will these divisive political grudges continue to rise – again and again – from the symbolically unmarked graves of political pride, perpetually haunting Zambia’s journey towards genuine reconciliation and sustained unity? The answer remains uncertain, suspended in the balance of future political actions and the collective will of the Zambian people to overcome their fractured past.
Similar Posts by The Mt Kenya Times:
- SasaPay unveils SasaPOS as Kaguchia drives digital payments push
- If our lives were documented, would we live differently?
- Mt Kenya Times ePAPER June 24, 2026
- Haaland sends Senegal reeling as Norway reach knockouts
- Matatu owners assure Kenyans of normal operations on June 25
About the Author
