State and Family Urged to Act as Preservation Clock Ticks on Lungu’s Body

The dispute over the burial of Zambia’s former president Edgar Lungu has now acquired an uncomfortable urgency, with biology threatening to overtake legal argument. Two Mountains Burial Services, in a formal letter dated 11 August and released through KBN TV, has placed both the Lungu family and the Zambian state on notice: while the remains are embalmed and stable, time is a material factor that can no longer be ignored.

The company’s representative, Johan Furstenberg, confirmed that embalming had provided temporary preservation but cautioned that no such measure is indefinite. Prolonged storage, he warned, inevitably increases the risk of visible deterioration. His firm has mooted the engagement of a pathologist and embalmer for an expert prognosis, yet pointedly asked who would bear the costs. That appeal was not theatrics. It was a reminder that in the science of preservation, delay is not neutral.

From the outset, the family has insisted on privacy, even attempting a tightly controlled burial in Johannesburg earlier this month. Cameras were barred, entry was restricted, and the ceremony was to proceed away from public scrutiny until the South African courts halted the process. That secrecy has collided with the state’s statutory duty to inter a former head of state at Embassy Park, a duty affirmed by the Pretoria High Court on 8 August. When the family escalated the case to the Constitutional Court, the High Court adjourned the matter sine die. The law has paused, but the passage of time has not.

The result has been fertile ground for speculation. Since 5 June, Zambian public discourse has been awash with conjecture about the circumstances of Lungu’s death, ranging from alleged gunfire to baseless claims of a faked demise. None has been supported by admissible evidence. Yet secrecy has created a vacuum into which rumour has effortlessly poured. Two Mountains’ intervention is a sober reminder: silence is rarely neutral in politics, and in death, as in life, perception can calcify into narrative if facts are withheld.

There remains a narrow, rational path forward. Both family and state could agree to a regime of limited disclosure, one that protects dignity while satisfying the public’s right to clarity. A joint medical note prepared by an independent pathologist, endorsed by both parties, could state the current condition of the remains, affirm the chain of custody, and specify preservation measures in place. Such a document would involve no photographs, no spectacle, but would place verifiable fact against rumour.

Chain-of-custody discipline is equally crucial. A contemporaneous log recording every transfer, temperature reading, and intervention would be invaluable. It would protect the family against allegations of mishandling, and the state against accusations of overreach. More importantly, it would ensure that if the Constitutional Court orders execution of the High Court’s judgment, repatriation can proceed without avoidable dispute over the body’s integrity.

Diplomatic space also exists. The government can reassure the family that before any formal state-led funeral, a family-led vigil will be allowed, respecting personal and religious rites. The family, in turn, can acknowledge that a president’s burial is inherently a matter of public interest, not partisan manoeuvring. Transparency on essentials is not political entrapment. It is a recognition that private grief and public duty are not mutually exclusive. Each side’s willingness to compromise would shorten the timeline and ease the national mood.

Two Mountains’ request for expert consultation should, therefore, be treated with urgency and routine pragmatism. If additional embalming, restorative care, or casket sealing is required, it ought to be done without delay. The financial implications are minor compared to the reputational damage of preventable deterioration. A nation’s dignity is ultimately reflected in how it says farewell to its leaders.

The court’s adjournment has created a procedural pause, not a pause in consequences. Biology advances regardless of legal briefs. Each day of impasse increases the risk that conversation drifts from protocol and law to speculation and grievance. What is needed now is a factual joint update, a clear logistical plan, and a narrowing of space for rumour. In this matter, time is not an ally.