Tuesday, June 24, 2025
Subscribe
Home Blog Page 2

Zambian delegation in Rome for high-level meeting

Support Editor
-
14
Zambian delegation in Rome for high-level meeting

Minister of Finance and National Planning, Situmbeko Musokotwane is leading the Zambian delegation to attend the high-level meeting on the Lobito Corridor project in Rome, Italy, scheduled to take place on June 20th, 2025.

According to a statement issued  by the Zambian Embassy in Rome, Italy, Dr Musokotwane who arrived in Rome today, will represent President Hakainde Hichilema at a high-level meeting on the Mattei Plan and European Union (EU) Global Gateway, a common effort with the African continent.

The statement read in part that, Dr Musokotwane and delegation are expected to meet Italy’s Prime Minister, Ms Giorgia and European Commission President Ms Ursula Von Der Leyen to discuss the Lobito Corridor project.

The statement indicated that the Lobito Corridor represents one of the major projects in which the Italian Government and EU through the Mattei Plan and EU Global Gateway, respectively collaborate on one of the largest regional projects in the context of the G-7 infrastructure initiatives, in support of Africa.

“The delegation was received by Zambia’s Ambassador to Italy, Patricia Chisanga who appreciated the government’s representation at the meeting,” the statement read in part.

The statement indicated that the high-level meeting has attracted government representation from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola and Tanzania which are parties to the Lobito Corridor project and organisations such as the African Union (AU), financial institutions, including the World Bank and the Africa Finance Corporation.

The High-level meeting is a culmination of a high-level ministerial technical meeting which was held in Rome on March 27th, 2025 and Zambia was represented by Minister of Transport and Logistics, Frank Tayali.

Church Appeals for Healing and Unity Amid Ongoing Lungu Funeral Dispute

Lusaka Times Editor
-
12
Church Appeals for Healing and Unity Amid Ongoing Lungu Funeral Dispute

Church Appeals for Healing and Unity Amid Ongoing Lungu Funeral Dispute

The Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ) has broken its silence on the impasse surrounding the funeral of Zambia’s sixth Republican President, Edgar Chagwa Lungu, urging both the government and the Lungu family to put aside their differences in the interest of national unity and healing.

Speaking at a media briefing, the CCZ expressed deep concern over the prolonged uncertainty around the late president’s burial, which was initially scheduled for June 18 but has since been postponed following a breakdown in communication between the State and the family.

“This state of uncertainty is affecting the general functioning of the nation which remains in mourning,” the council noted. “We urge both parties to find common ground in the spirit of mutual respect.”

The Church emphasized that the late President Lungu served the country and deserves a dignified and nationally coordinated send-off. “The grief experienced by the family is shared by the entire nation. This is not a private loss it is a national one,” the Church said, calling for the burial to be free of contention and mockery.

The CCZ also condemned the rise of insensitive public commentary and online ridicule, warning Zambians not to turn a solemn period into an arena for jokes. Citing Ecclesiastes 4, the Church reminded the public that this is “a time for mourning, not for firing savours at each other or making fun.”

Addressing concerns about its silence, the Church clarified that it has been active both publicly and behind the scenes, offering conciliatory counsel to both the Lungu family and government officials.

“There are respected clergy working to facilitate dialogue. Mediation is ongoing, even if not every pastor is on the front line,” the statement said.

Responding to questions on whether the Church felt undermined, the CCZ explained that counseling is a delicate process, and the decision ultimately lies with those being counseled. “The Church is not being undermined—we are doing our part, and we remain hopeful that a compromise will be reached.”

The council did, however, caution against the confusion caused by conflicting press statements and information leaks. It praised the UPND Secretary General’s recent directive for party members to refrain from unauthorized public commentary and encouraged both government and the Lungu family to speak only through designated representatives.

“We all come from African families. There is always a family spokesperson. Let’s maintain that culture and avoid unnecessary agitation,” the CCZ advised.

The Church concluded its appeal with a heartfelt message: “The Lungu family needs healing. The government needs healing. Zambia as a nation needs healing. May God grant us peace and help us remain anchored in our national values of unity, love, and harmony.”

As the standoff over the late president’s final rites continues, the Church has positioned itself as a moral anchor, calling for restraint, dialogue, and dignity at a time when the country needs it most.

Zambia concludes maize purchase from Tanzania

Support Editor
-
11
Zambia concludes maize purchase from Tanzania

Zambia has concluded its purchase of the 650, 000 metric tonnes of maize from Tanzania.

The initiative was a government to government agreement aimed at mitigating effects of the Elnino-induced drought that impacted Zambia last year.

A Zambian delegation yesterday witnessed the shipment of the final consignment of the 195,000 metric tonnes of maize from Tanzania, to mark the end of the agreement.

The delegation, which included senior officials from the Food Reserve Agency (FRA), Ministry of Agriculture, and the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit (DMMU), observed the final dispatch in Sumbawanga, in Western Tanzania.

FRA Executive Director, Justine Chuunka, confirmed that the entire maize consignment procured under the emergency agreement has now been accounted for.

He expressed gratitude to Tanzania’s National Food Reserve Agency (NFRA) for successfully fulfilling Zambia’s order.

“We are witnessing the final upliftment of the final government to government maize procurement. As you know, last year, the Zambian government declared drought and this prompted emergency procurement of maize from Tanzania to prevent hunger,” Mr Chuunka said.

He confirmed that all quantities of maize that was uplifted from Tanzania has been received and have been reconciled with Tanzania’s National Food Reserve Agency (NRFA).

DMMU Director of Emergency Operations, Amos Mumba, stated that the maize is expected to arrive in Zambia within two weeks, and will be distributed to the most affected regions.

He acknowledged that while logistical challenges were encountered in transporting the large consignment, all issues were successfully resolved.

Meanwhile, Ministry of Agriculture Director of Agribusiness and Marketing, Peter Zulu, praised the collaborative efforts between FRA Zambia, NFRA Tanzania, and DMMU, and described the operation as a successful execution of the government’s directive to cushion citizens from the harsh effects of last year’s drought.

“The maize purchase agreement was coordinated so well that today we are witnessing the last consignment,” Mr Zulu said.

The El Niño weather patterns, which disrupted rainfall activities in the country last year, severely affected agricultural productivity.

Sinda witchdoctor defiles two minors

Support Editor
-
0
Sinda witchdoctor defiles two minors

A witchdoctor of Kwinjili village in Chieftainess Kawaza’s chiefdom in Sinda district, Eastern Province has  defiled two minors of the same family aged between 13 and 15, on June 13 and 14, 2025.

Yona Phiri, an adult of unknown age, believed to be a witchdoctor, is alleged to have defiled the 13 year old girl on the June 13, between 18 and 22:00 hours.

And the following day on June14th, the suspect is believed to have defiled a 15 year old girl who is the elder sister to the first victim, between 18:00 and 22:00hours.

Eastern Province Police Commanding Officer, Robertson Mweemba, says the matter was reported on June 16, 2025 around 19:36 hours by the father of the two minors,  Daniel Banda aged 55 of Khondwelani village, of Chief Kathumba’s chiefdom in Sinda district.

Mr Mweemba said both victims sustained painful injuries on their private parts and police medical reports were issued to the minors.

He said dockets of the case have been opened and a manhunt  to apprehend the suspect has been launched.

The Police Commanding Officer said more details will be availed to members of the public once the suspect is apprehended.

 

 

Arrest Everyone Withholding Remains Of Edgar Lungu

Chief Editor
-
22
Arrest Everyone Withholding Remains Of Edgar Lungu

The Republican Progressive Party (RPP) strongly condemns the actions of individuals or groups who are allegedly withholding the body of the late Edgar Lungu, an act which has delayed national mourning and likely to disrupt the planned official burial.

It is clear from the foregoing that there is a deliberate and calculated intention to embarrass the Head of State, undermine the authority of the Government, and sow confusion across the country. These actions represent a serious threat to national unity and order during a critical period of mourning.

We believe this is not merely an act of defiance, but a treasonous attempt to usurp state power through indirect incitement and the encouragement of public unrest. Such behavior is tantamount to sedition and must not be tolerated.

The RPP is calling for the immediate arrest of all those involved in this disgraceful and dangerous act. Their actions are alarming the nation, creating discontent, and fuelling speculation, all while the country is in a period of grief and reflection.

Furthermore, the economic consequences of this unnecessary turmoil during national mourning have been significant.
We also view this as a deliberate act of sabotage, intended to disrupt the work of the government and create uncertainty in its operations. These are not mere political disagreements; these are actions designed to destabilize our country.
The RPP stands firmly with the rule of law and calls upon the relevant authorities to act decisively. The peace, dignity, and order of the Republic must be preserved.

Issued by:
Simangile Magodi
RPP National Women Secretary, Simangele Magodi

State funeral for President Lungu still on track, government says

Lusaka Times Editor
-
40
State funeral for President Lungu still on track, government says

State expresses regret, assures ongoing dialogue with family and South African authorities

The Zambian Government has confirmed that the remains of the late Sixth Republican President, Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu,were not repatriated to Zambia on the expected date of Wednesday, 18th June 2025. In a press statement released by Secretary to the Cabinet, Patrick Kangwa, the Government acknowledged the national disappointment and reaffirmed its commitment to securing a dignified and united send-off in consultation with the bereaved family.

The statement reveals that despite diplomatic engagements and progress made through joint discussions with the Lungu family and the South African Government, the anticipated arrival was delayed. The Government maintains its readiness to honour the late President with a State Funeral and full military honours, pledging continued engagement until an amicable resolution is reached. Church leaders have been thanked for their neutral mediation.

Full official statement

Republic of Zambia

Press Statement for Immediate Release

The Government wishes to inform the nation that the remains of the Late Sixth President of the Republic of Zambia, Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu, were not repatriated to Zambia today. We acknowledge that this is contrary to the previous announcement that the remains would be received in Zambia, today Wednesday, 18th June 2025.

This is not the outcome we sought. We acknowledge the disappointment this may bring to many, and we share in that sentiment. Throughout this trying time, you, the Zambian people, have exemplified the core values that define us in our motto of
“One Zambia, One Nation”.

Over the past two weeks, the Government of the Republic of Zambia has been fully engaged with the bereaved family of our late Sixth President, Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu, to secure the dignified repatriation of his mortal remains from South Africa and the conduct of a State Funeral here at home. Government has also made efforts to engage the Government of the Republic of South Africa to assist with the repatriation of the remains of the late former Head of State through diplomatic efforts which resulted in the arrangement for military honours to be accorded at the send off ceremony of the late former President of the Republic of Zambia.

Despite the challenges encountered along the way, the discussions yielded significant progress. On Saturday, 14 June 2025, Government and the family reached a common understanding, after which a joint press briefing was held in Pretoria on Sunday June 15, 2025. A detailed programme was then publicly announced by the family, outlining the arrival of the body in Lusaka on Wednesday, 18 June 2025, and the burial on Monday, 23 June 2025. In this same joint address, it was announced that the President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr. Hakainde Hichilema would superintend over the State Funeral, as Head of State.

The Government and the people of Zambia are as per our laws and tradition, on matters related to the handling of the affairs of a deceased former Head of State still prepared to accord our 6th Republican President with full military honour’s due to him as a former Head
of State of this country. The State Funeral was to honour his services to this nation, and to accord the people of Zambia an opportunity to bid him farewell and a dignified funeral.

Nevertheless, Government remains open, and indeed committed, to re-engagement until an amicable resolution is achieved.

In that spirit, we are grateful for the continued mediation by senior church leaders who are faithfully serving as neutral facilitators between Government and the family. Their counsel and prayers are most welcome at this delicate hour.

The Government wishes to appeal to each one of us to remain calm, united, and prayerful. Let us avoid speculation, divisive rhetoric, or actions that may inflame emotions. Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu served this nation at the highest level. He deserves a final resting place marked by dignity, decorum, and national solidarity.

At an appropriate moment, the President will address the nation and provide further guidance. Until then, the Government will continue its consultations with the family, mindful of the need to accord our late former President the honour commensurate with his office and service.

May the Almighty God guide our deliberations, comfort the bereaved family, and bless the Republic of Zambia as we navigate this trying period together.

I thank you, and may God bless our great nation.

Patrick Kangwa
Secretary to the Cabinet
Released to the Media
18th June, 2025

Lungu’s Final Wishes or Family Fiction? Laura Miti Questions

Lusaka Times Editor
-
27
Lungu’s Final Wishes or Family Fiction? Laura Miti Questions

Lungu’s Final Wishes or Family Fiction? Laura Miti Raises Doubts Over Funeral Narrative

Here is to you a bold and thought-provoking critique. governance activist Laura Miti has questioned the public narrative surrounding the late former President Edgar Lungu’s funeral arrangements, particularly the claims being made by his family in the wake of his passing. Her reflections, shared in a widely circulated statement, challenge the logic and cultural plausibility of some of the family’s assertions and has brought fresh debate about respect, politics, and truth in national mourning.

At the heart of Miti’s critique is the suggestion that the Lungu family has attributed peculiar instructions to the late President, allegedly given before his death in South Africa. Chief among these is the claim that Lungu explicitly instructed his body not be flown back to Zambia aboard a government aircraft, a demand that Miti finds both implausible and inconsistent with presidential dignity.

“Do you know how strange it is that anyone would bother too much about how their body will be transported after they die?” Miti asked rhetorically. “To leave strict instructions about which plane his dead body will use… That’s a really bizarre claim, you will have to agree.”

Miti also casts doubt on the family’s other reported claim , that Lungu did not want President Hakainde Hichilema to come near his remains. She questions the emotional logic behind such a directive, suggesting it reflects poorly on the former President’s legacy. “You’re saying that when a whole former President was dying, his thoughts were not on his wife, his children, or even God, but rather on his political rival?” she writes. “That his final moments were preoccupied with vengeance?”

Beyond the personal, Miti takes issue with what she sees as a contradiction in state precedent. Lungu’s government famously defied Kenneth Kaunda’s family to secure a state burial at Embassy Park for Zambia’s founding president. Yet now, the former President’s family appears to have insisted on undermining similar state protocols allegedly following his own posthumous instructions. “You are saying he used his last days and weeks to say ignore the court ruling I asked for myself?” Miti questions.

In a particularly emotive passage, she appeals to the late President’s widow, Esther Lungu. “When will poor Esther get to sit on a mattress to let out her grief and receive condolences?” she asks, referencing the traditional mourning practices that have been stalled by the prolonged funeral impasse.

While acknowledging that elderly family members have since emerged in the negotiations, Miti wonders whether they genuinely supported the decision to withhold the body from the state, or whether cultural expectations were overlooked entirely. “Do you know what a strangely willing-to-go-against-culture that makes the whole extended Lungu family?”

Miti’s critique walks a careful line between political commentary and cultural introspection. While she refrains from direct political attacks, her message is unmistakable: the story being told by the family may not only undermine Lungu’s own legacy but also strain Zambia’s collective capacity to mourn with dignity.

Her closing line lingers with intention: “Are you really claiming that this drama is all because EL hated HH so much that he was willing to turn his own funeral into a circus for the ages…? Rethink your story, mwe.”

As Zambia prepares to lay its sixth president to rest, such questions though uncomfortable are prompting deeper reflection on what it means to honour leadership, tradition, and the truth.

Since the Lungu family has opened the door to an interrogation of all things relating to President Lungu’s death – here are a few more questions:

Dear Lungu Family,

Do you understand how the things you have claimed, since President Lungu died, make little logical sense and are rather disrespectful to his own posthumous reputation?
Your main claim is – he spoke about how his remains should go back to Zambia.

1. Do you know how strange it is that anyone would bother too much about how their body will be transported after they die?? To leave strict instructions about which plane his dead body will use to go back home after dying abroad. To say – spend loads of money to pay for my body to not be put on a Zambian government plane. That’s a really bizarre claim, you will have to agree.
The other claim is be didn’t want the current President near his body.

2. You do understand, don’t you, that you are suggesting that, when a whole former President was dying, his thoughts were on his rival? Not on his wife, his children, grand children or the nation he led. Not even on the God he was about to meet. He was focused on the man he had a deep political rivalry with.
You are saying that President Lungu’s thoughts, in preparation for his own death, were full of hate and vengeance for a man who he himself had hurt deeply and who had also hurt him? His last thoughts were about how to get in one last stab??

3. The suggestion to Zambia is that President Lungu went to meet his ancestors, and his God, having elaborately planned a chaotic funeral for himself. One that he himself would not have allowed, if he was President. Remember his government went to court to overturn the wishes of the KK family for the first President’s burial. You are saying he used his last days and weeks to say – ignore the court ruling I asked for myself?

4. We notice that you have now found elderly family members. Congratulations!
But are you saying that they too agreed to follow the body to SA, to help keep it hostage. They did not want to sit at the funeral house in Zambia? Do you know what a strangely willing-to-go-against-culture that makes the whole extended Lungu family?

5. You do realise that you brought out the widow to sit there while it was being announced that her husband’s body will still not be buried, after days. Not buried only because the her dead husband hated the man who replaced him in office?
When will poor Esther get “to sit on a mattress” to let out her grief and receive condolences?
Let me ask this again, dear family. Are you really claiming that this drama is all because EL hated HH so much that he was willing to turn his own funeral into a circus for the ages, and left instructions to ensure that happened??
Hmmm. Rethink your story mwe. Anyway, kaya

National Funeral Feud: Lungu Family Blocks Body’s Return

Chief Editor
-
54
National Funeral Feud: Lungu Family Blocks Body’s Return

 

plane waiting to carry the remains of the Late President Lungu back to Zambia

The return of the late former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu’s remains to Zambia has been unexpectedly postponed, following a dramatic fallout between the government and the late leader’s family over funeral arrangements.

In a strongly worded statement issued from South Africa, family spokesperson Makebi Zulu accused government officials of breaching prior agreements made with the family on how the funeral proceedings should unfold. He alleged that several decisions had been taken unilaterally, without consultation, leading to a breakdown in trust.

“A programme was released suggesting that upon arrival at Kenneth Kaunda International Airport, the late President’s body would be transported directly to a church service and subsequently to the Mulungushi International Conference Centre,” Zulu stated. “This plan, too, had not been agreed upon by the family.”

Zulu cited the announcement by the Road Development Agency (RDA) on June 16 about roadworks on the Chifwema route — a path previously agreed upon for the state funeral procession — as a major concern. “This was done without consultation and directly contradicted the agreed-upon funeral programme,” he said.

Tensions further escalated when the Secretary to the Cabinet issued a public statement on June 17, reportedly limiting public participation in the reception of the late President’s remains. Zulu said this move not only sidelined the family but denied them the right to invite people they deemed necessary for such a significant and emotional moment.

“The family find it very difficult to believe that government would stick to their end of the agreement,” Zulu declared. “And have resolved, sadly so, that the mortal remains of President Edgar Lungu would not return home today.”

The latest development has cast a shadow over what was expected to be a dignified and solemn return of Zambia’s sixth President. While government officials have yet to issue a formal response to the family’s accusations, sources indicate that efforts to mediate the impasse are ongoing behind closed doors.

Observers say the public nature of the disagreement is highly unusual and reflects deep mistrust and strained relations between the family and government authorities.

Despite the conflict, the family maintains hope for a resolution. “We still believe that in due time, the remains of President Edgar Lungu will return home and be laid to rest in a manner that respects both family wishes and national dignity,” said Zulu.

As the nation remains in mourning, the political undercurrents surrounding Lungu’s funeral have added an unexpected layer of controversy to a period meant for unity and remembrance.

Remains of Former President Edgar Lungu to Arrive in Zambia Wednesday Afternoon

Chief Editor
-
32
Remains of Former President Edgar Lungu to Arrive in Zambia Wednesday Afternoon

In a solemn announcement Secretary to the Cabinet Patrick Kangwa confirmed that the mortal remains of Zambia’s sixth President Dr. Edgar Chagwa Lungu will be repatriated from South Africa to Zambia on Wedneday 18th June 2025 at 14 hours.

Mr. Kangwa detailed that the casket will arrive at Kenneth Kaunda International Airport (KKIA) and will be received with full military honours by the Zambia Defence Force. Due to limited capacity, attendance at the ceremonial reception will be strictly by invitation. The event will be broadcast live by ZNBC, ZANIS TV, Prime TV, Diamond TV, and other media outlets

Following the ceremony, the body will initially proceed to lie in state at the late President’s private residence at Plot 56660 Chifwema Road, New Kasama. Public viewings will then take place at the Mulungushi International Conference Centre from Thursday, 19 June through Saturday, 21 June.

Belverdere Lodge will remain the official designated venue for the State Funeral during the period of National mourning.

This development comes after formal agreement between the Government and the Lungu family on funeral arrangements. These plans follow a reunification process amid a previously tense mourning period.

The Government urges members of the public to continue to mourn the departed Sixth President with dignity and respect.

Reconciliation Without Accountability Risks Deepening National Divides-Lawyer

Lusaka Times Editor
-
11
Reconciliation Without Accountability Risks Deepening National Divides-Lawyer

Renowned lawyer and political commentator Sakwiba Sikota has questioned the timing and sincerity of posthumous calls for reconciliation following the passing of Zambia’s sixth Republican President, Edgar Chagwa Lungu. Speaking in a one-on-one interview with Costa Mwansa on Diamond TV, Sikota cautioned that unity cannot be imposed through speeches after death when efforts to reconcile during life were either absent or avoided.

“If you couldn’t reconcile with the man when he was breathing, why do you expect his supporters to reconcile now that he’s gone simply?” Sikota asked pointedly.

He expressed concern that the appeals for peace, while well-intended, may come across as superficial if not matched by introspection and honesty about how the former president was treated. “You don’t provoke someone in life and expect peace in death,” he said.

According to Sikota, reconciliation must be earned, not declared. He emphasized that genuine healing requires mutual recognition of past actions, including those that may have deepened political wounds. “Reconciliation is not a speech,” he noted. “It’s about action, respect, and accountability.”

Sikota also urged leaders to resist the urge to use the funeral as a political stage, warning that public mourning should not become a platform for expedient narratives. His tone was reflective rather than accusatory  a call for all sides to examine their roles honestly.

“You can’t humiliate a man for years and then ask his followers to forget overnight,” he said. “That is not reconciliation. That is denial.”

With the funeral drawing near, Sikota’s comments offer a timely reminder that reconciliation is a process  not an event. His remarks invite not division, but deeper thought on what true unity looks like and how it must be grounded in truth, not performance.

Sikota: Honour Lungu in Full , Not Just in Death

Lusaka Times Editor
-
16
Sikota: Honour Lungu in Full , Not Just in Death

Sikota: Honour Lungu in Full — Not Just in Death

United Kwacha Alliance (UKA) Chairperson and senior lawyer Sakwiba Sikota has urged Zambians to honour the legacy of former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu in totality  not just with polished tributes after his passing, but with truth, reflection, and humility about how he was treated in life.

Speaking in a solemn interview with Costa Mwansa on Diamond TV, Sikota reflected on the late president’s public and political journey, warning against the growing trend to rewrite his story through emotional eulogies that omit the pain he endured after leaving office.

“This is a man who led the country for seven years,” Sikota emphasized. “He made mistakes, like any leader, but he also gave his service to the nation. If we strip him of dignity in life and only honour him in death, what message are we sending to those who serve today?”

As Chairperson of UKA a political alliance that includes the Patriotic Front, under which Lungu served, Sikota spoke with personal reverence and institutional perspective. He described Lungu as a “humble, soft-spoken man who led with a quiet strength,” and warned that the current outpouring of praise must not be used to mask the hostilities Lungu faced in his final years.

Following his retirement in 2021, Lungu largely withdrew from public life. But Sikota recounted how mounting frustration  including the withdrawal of his retirement benefits, government pushback against his public appearances, and what many viewed as a concerted campaign to sideline him, contributed to his return to active politics.

“President Lungu didn’t come back because he was hungry for power,” Sikota said. “He came back because he saw what was happening to democracy, to opposition freedoms, and to the very institutions he once led. He felt compelled to speak again not for himself, but for the people who still believed in him.”

Sikota said it was impossible to separate the treatment Lungu received in retirement from the political resurgence that followed. “You can only push a man so far,” he noted. “Eventually, he will stand up  not out of pride, but out of principle.”

He recalled how, even while re-entering the political arena, Lungu remained composed and focused on unifying the opposition. “He could have attacked. He could have been bitter. But he wasn’t. He was measured,” Sikota said.

Now, in the wake of Lungu’s death, Sikota challenged those who criticized the former president in life but praise him in death to reflect honestly on their roles. “You cannot erase the years of silence and mockery with one tribute,” he said. “Honour must be earned when it matters  not just when it’s convenient.”

As Zambia prepares for Lungu’s burial, emotions remain high, and political narratives are being reshaped in real time. But Sikota’s message is one of maturity and introspection: that reconciliation, like remembrance, must be full, not selective.

“If we truly respect this man,” he concluded, “let’s remember both the good and the hard truths. Let’s not clean up history to suit our emotions. Let us face it, and learn from it.”

Dogs Maul 72 year old man

Chief Editor
-
6
Dogs Maul 72 year old man

A 72-year-old man of Chitwi Farm Block in Luanshya district is facing amputation of his limbs after being viciously attacked by four crossbreed dogs.
The victim, Willie Konda, a farmworker at Baba’s Farm, met his fate last Thursday evening, when he was on his way home around 19:00 hours.

Mr Konda was returning from watching television at a neighbouring farm when he was attacked by the dogs belonging to a Ms. Simukonda of Kawango Farm No. 4249.

According to eyewitness accounts, the dogs were released from their kennel for routine feeding when they launched the attack, biting off flesh from Mr Konda’s legs, leaving him with large open wounds and exposed bone tissue.

Medical findings at Roan General Hospital where he is currently receiving treatment have indicated that the extent of wounds injuries may lead to the amputation of both legs.

The Luanshya Municipal Council has since initiated legal proceedings against Ms Simukonda for multiple violations under the Public Health Act and the Dog Control Act.

Council Public Relations Manager, Gideon Thole, disclosed that the local authority was also collaborating with the Zambia Police Service to kill the dogs involved in the attack.

And Council Acting Director of Public Health, Justin Siafumba, confirmed that Ms Simukonda will be charged with multiple charges, including failing to secure the animals, keeping unregistered and unvaccinated dogs, and violating local dog ownership limits.

Markets ‘dangerously complacent’ amid Iran-Israel tension: deVere

Chief Editor
-
4
Markets ‘dangerously complacent’ amid Iran-Israel tension: deVere

Global stock markets are showing a “dangerous complacency” in response to the sharp escalation of military conflict between Iran and Israel, warns the CEO of one of the world’s largest independent financial advisory organizations.

Despite the scale and significance of recent developments, investor behaviour reflects misplaced calm, with major indices rebounding quickly after a brief dip.

Nigel Green, CEO of deVere Group, comments: “The world is watching a direct confrontation between two major regional powers, and yet markets are treating it as background noise.

“This isn’t resilience, it’s a mispricing of risk. Investors are leaning into a narrative that no longer fits the facts.”

Following Israel’s airstrikes on Iranian infrastructure, the S&P 500 dropped 1.5% but quickly reversed. Brent crude surged 4.1% to a high of $91.17 a barrel before stabilising. Gold jumped to an all-time high of $2,431 an ounce, and energy stocks climbed across the board. Yet the VIX—Wall Street’s volatility index—remains subdued, holding near 13.0.

“These reactions are out of sync,” says Nigel Green.

“Gold and oil are reacting appropriately to heightened geopolitical risk. Equities are not. Volatility remains artificially low. That divergence should concern every serious investor.”

The latest military exchange follows Iran’s April 2024 launch of over 300 drones and missiles toward Israel, most of which were intercepted.

Israel’s recent counterstrikes mark a significant intensification, targeting infrastructure inside Iran—a move seen by many as a shift away from proxy warfare and toward direct state conflict.

The risks to global energy markets are growing. The Strait of Hormuz, which Iran could disrupt, carries roughly 17 million barrels of oil per day—nearly 20% of global supply.

Even the threat of closure or interference would “likely push oil well beyond $100 per barrel, reigniting inflation and altering the current trajectory of interest rate policy in developed economies.”

He continues: “Investors are clinging to a framework shaped by central bank support, solid earnings, and disinflation,” Nigel Green explains.

“But if energy prices rise sharply from here, that disinflation story evaporates. Rate cuts could stall. Market momentum could reverse.”

Gold’s breakout is one of the clearest signals. The precious metal is now up more than 20% year-to-date. The current price level of $2,430 per ounce “reflects deeper anxiety among institutional capital—even as broader markets appear relaxed.”

In contrast, the Nasdaq has continued to attract inflows, with megacap tech leading gains despite clear sensitivity to any increase in real yields, energy costs, or broad-based risk aversion.

“Too much capital is still positioned as if volatility is optional,” notes the deVere CEO.

“We’re advising clients to shift toward more robust positioning—adding to gold, defensive dividend payers, and select energy exposure while reducing overweights in overly optimistic growth segments.”

The Iran-Israel conflict is not occurring in isolation. It unfolds against a backdrop of high global fragility: renewed Chinese military pressure near Taiwan, ongoing war in Ukraine, and the political volatility of the Trump presidency in the US.

Markets have absorbed each headline in isolation, but “few are connecting the cumulative risk.”

Nigel Green adds: “The view that markets can power through every shock is no longer supported by the data.

“The conflict in the Middle East has entered a more dangerous phase. It has serious global and far-reaching implications for investors.”

Free Speech

Chief Editor
-
13
Free Speech

Free speech is not just for the people or thoughts we like or agree with; it is also for people we despise and opinions that we do not support

By Sishuwa Sishuwa

I believe in freedom of expression. I live or practice this belief. I believe that free speech is intended to protect the expression of ideas in public, to enable us to communicate with each other about what we understand to be true, and to share opinions, debate differing viewpoints, and challenge the status quo.

I believe that every person has the right to express themselves in any way, to share opinions that diverge from my own or the prevailing narrative, and to say whatever they want or think including when responding to what I share. In turn, I can choose to respond or ignore, although I welcome and make every effort to read and understand the reactions, rebuttals, or concerns that other people express in response to what I have said.

Having claimed and exercised my freedom of expression, I am only all too aware of the right of others to exercise the same right on any matter, including when commenting on my public commentaries. Being human, it is natural that we will have varying lines of thought. Flexibility in slant of views is in keeping up with our humanness. I believe that it is only through many conversations that we can reconsider our positions, challenge our assumptions, question our convictions, and come to appreciate our own ignorance.

One thing I will never do in response to any criticism of my opinions or of me as a person is to block any person, to mute them on social media and consequently shut myself from the knowledge of their views, or to interfere in any way with their right to express themselves fully, even in instances where the person is saying nothing substantive or rational. The right to free speech would be meaningless if it was accompanied by a requirement to only give expression to reasonable or sensible thoughts.

As a matter of fact, I receive a lot of flak, nasty responses, insults or ad hominem attacks over the opinions or ideas I express. As is true of my rather indifferent attitude towards praise, these things do not get to me. They do not bother me at all. If they did, I would have long stopped expressing myself on public issues. I speak to express my opinions, not to secure anyone’s validation, respect, support, or favour. What easily gets to me is reason, logic, or a good argument, displayed by an ability to show weakness in my stated point of view. I actively listen and pay greater attention to content-based criticism. I believe that free speech is the heart of a free, open, and democratic society.

I am gravely concerned about the increasing limitations placed on free speech in Zambia today by two threats. The first threat to free speech is the current administration that has enacted a series of anti-free speech laws and dusted off colonial-era repressive legislation to lock up critics for expressing views that should ordinarily be handled within the realm of political debate rather than by state institutions such as the police. This is a dangerous path that creates a climate of fear, stifles growth, and fuels public resentment against the leadership or political party in government.

The hesitancy that people feel to freely express themselves is grounded in a realistic fear of reprisal from the authorities, as many are worried that one misstep could lead to arrest or – given the absence of an independent judiciary that protects individual liberties – imprisonment. Yes, free speech must be exercised responsibly to be beneficial to society. However, the government cannot be the determiner of what is or is not responsible free speech.

The second threat to free speech in Zambia today is the growing individual intolerance to thoughts or opinions that we do not like. Many people are increasingly hesitant to speak their minds, to share their true thoughts, to challenge or question the status quo because they fear the backlash, mainly from overzealous supporters of the party in power, and the social repercussions: isolation, orchestrated campaigns against them, or personal attacks.

Our appetite or willingness to be easily triggered, offended, hurt, or outraged by opinions we do not share appears to be a result of several factors. These include a general incapacity by many of us to embrace the unfamiliar, to eschew haste in passing judgement, and to attack the thought rather than the thinker. Our extreme levels of intolerance are also, I think, a consequence of our deep-seated culture of subservience to authorities – rooted in a long history of personalised rule and social influences such as the degraded version of Christianity that we practice.

Added to the above factors that fuel intolerance is the uncritical assumption embraced by many that there exists a particular view on certain topics that is supported by the majority, against which dissent is prohibited. This is regrettable. Free speech is not just for the people or thoughts we like or agree with. Free speech is for everyone, even those we despise, with whom we disagree or who do not support what we do. It is for opinions that diverge from our own and includes the right to say things that other people may find controversial, irritating, uncomfortable, and even shocking.

We must all do what we can to defend free speech, to promote understanding and tolerance, and to expand rather than shrink free spaces for the expression of thought including dissent. We must fight for these expansions and not limitations, eliminations, blocking and all manner of anti-free speech behaviours. True believers in free speech are married to facts that are available to them at the material time and to the truth, objective truth as it exists independent of them, and so they hate to persist in error: this is only possible if their opinions or ideas are accessible to all those who care to reflect on them in whatever non-physical violent manner possible.

We all have the right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds by any peaceful means, to express what we think, to agree or disagree with those in power, and to demand a better Zambia. Let free speech reign!

Has America Ever Excluded a President from a State Funeral?

Chief Editor
-
40
Has America Ever Excluded a President from a State Funeral?

By Chanda Chisala

A disturbingly large number of Zambians have apparently failed to imagine that the president of Zambia could legally be uninvited or barred from attending a state funeral. This might be because we have been programmed to think the president is our king or super chief – the chief of chiefs – who is too special to ever be barred from any event, especially one involving the state. Other people are even saying it’s impossible for the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to not officiate or lead any event where the military is performing state honours. The recent controversial impasse between the president of Zambia and the late president Lungu’s family could thus be a great opportunity to learn about how powerful the rights of Zambian citizens are, even when faced against the power of the state.

The most powerful commander in chief in the entire world is arguably the president of the United States, at least if we go by military budgets (the US military budget is bigger than the next nine biggest national military budgets combined). And yet Americans understand that their president is just a human being who is elected to serve them, and his personal wishes do not necessarily override the wishes of any American citizen or family if they clash against him. Thus, the president can’t just gatecrash a state funeral where he’s unwanted there, for example, even if he is the Head of State!

In 2018, when senator John McCain died, he was granted a state funeral because of the enormous stature he had reached in American society. And yet McCain had made it clear that he did not want the sitting president of the United States, Donald Trump, anywhere near his funeral.

Despite this, Trump had to grudgingly issue a presidential proclamation ordering all flags to be flown at half-staff at all federal buildings, military posts, embassies worldwide, and even at the White House where Trump was resident. This was officially a full state funeral with military honors and gun salutes, and it was attended by former United States presidents and dignitaries from around the world, but president Trump was not to be seen anywhere near these ceremonies, as desired by the deceased and his bereaved family.

McCain was of course not a former president, so one might think that for former presidents there would be no such option of disinviting the president.

Fortunately, we have a way of knowing whether this is true or not. When George H W Bush also died during Trump’s presidency, president Trump was invited to the state funeral this time, even though he was well known to have an acrimonious relationship with the Bush family. The very fact that Americans were surprised that Trump was invited shows that it is not automatic that the incumbent president has to be invited to a state funeral. The newspaper reports about this event make that crystal clear. See, for example, how the New York Times distinguished between the McCain funeral and the Bush funeral concerning the Trump invitation:

“Unlike Senator John McCain, who made clear Mr. Trump would not be welcome at his own funeral in September,” The New York Times reported, “ Mr. Bush opted not to break tradition by keeping away the incumbent president. But he did not invite Mr. Trump to speak.”

You can see that even though Bush decided to keep tradition (tradition, not law) of inviting sitting presidents to state funerals, even he decided to limit Trump’s role to that of only an attendee rather than allowing him to speak or officiate at the funeral, as is customary. Trump complied and said nothing at the funeral. He was happy just to be at least invited this time!

In Zambia, our colourful Vice-President thinks it is “treasonous” – a crime that is punishable by death – to ask the president not to attend a state funeral! (Even if you don’t like HH, I suggest you keep praying for his health, given who would take over if God-forbid anything were to happen to him).

Nixon

Besides the question of funeral invitations, there has also been further debate in Zambia about whether the family of a deceased former president even has the option of declining a state funeral altogether, in preference for a private funeral or even a burial elsewhere.

We know that the US does not have to be a model for everything, but we can check if they have had to deal with this scenario too, since they are a much older democracy than Zambia, having had at least 45 elected presidents compared with Zambia’s seven. This is why it is common practice for Zambian lawyers to check how they handled similar matters of law when faced with a legal quandary.

When Richard Nixon died in 1994, his two daughters who were his only next of kin, expressed his wish to not have a state funeral. They wanted only a much simpler family event at his presidential library and they wanted him buried next to his late wife in his hometown in California, as he had desired, far from Washington, DC where all state funerals are conducted.

Again, the government did not argue with this choice and they simply helped the family fulfill the wishes of their father. On the other hand, the family did accept a few of the customs that normally accompany a state funeral, even while rejecting the main ones. The state not only granted their wishes within the law, but even organized invitations for the dignitaries to attend the private funeral.

Contrast this with the Zambian High Court case of Kaweche Kaunda against the Secretary to the Cabinet in which the judge clearly misguided himself when the Kaunda family wanted to honor the wish of their father (Zambia’s first president, Kenneth Kaunda) to be buried at his farm and not at Embassy Park. The judge claimed that the Kaunda family had to follow whatever protocols the Secretary to the Cabinet wanted just because they had already accepted the state funeral. No, this is really just a perk given to a president and not some law that has to be obeyed. It is just like any of his other perks and he (through his family or directly) can accept or reject some or all of these perks.

For example, just because a retired president accepts to receive a house from the state does not mean he also has to accept all the other benefits, including the three security personnel and the driver from the state etc. He can choose what he wants to receive; you can’t say that once he accepts one of these perks, then he has to accept whatever else they offer him. This even applies to a sitting president: living in State House is a perk that is offered to him, and traditionally presidents have accepted this perk. But a president has a right to decline this offer and any other perks, including a presidential salary. Should he be forced to accept everything that is offered to him just because he has accepted some things in presidential “protocol”?

The Kaunda family were happy with a state funeral with the gun salutes etc, but they did not want the body of the president being taken around all the provinces of Zambia, for example, and they begged the Secretary of the Cabinet not to do this, especially due to the coronavirus pandemic at that time. The Cabinet Secretary ignored their pleas and they reluctantly accompanied the body to all the provinces. To make matters worse, this is not even a perk that is written down anywhere in normal protocols, but they were still forced to go along with it as if it is the law of the land.

Most painfully, the Secretary to the Cabinet also ignored their pleas to let them honor the wish of president KK to be buried at his farm next to his beloved late wife Betty, just as Nixon had also desired in the US. The judge sided with the Secretary, despite the able lawyer from Simeza and Sangwa correctly pointing out that this government official had no legal right to just overrule the wishes of the former president at a whim. Interestingly, this judge could not see the irony of saying that KK was so special (“no ordinary person”) that we can treat him so badly by ignoring his deepest final wish!

No, you cannot just say that public interest supersedes individual interest, when there is no physical harm being inflicted on others by an individual’s wishes concerning his own life. This is precisely why the Bill of Rights exists. As Kaunda’s lawyer argued, the government needed to first take the issue to parliament to pass a law if they want citizens to follow some specific procedure, instead of forcing them to follow some random orders from a government official.

The rule of law means that government officials cannot just take over private property to treat it as they wish, against the wishes of its natural or legal private owners. And no, a former president’s body does not magically become “state property” just because some politician or bureaucrat says so. The body belongs to his family, just as his houses, cars and all other property of his belong to the family and they have a right to honor any wishes they received from him.

The bottom line is that our young democracy has a long way to go before our mindsets truly evolve to begin seeing individual (and property) rights as sacrosanct. This also means we should stop seeing any ruling president as our almighty king to be treated like a god. All men are created equal.

The author, Chanda Chisala, is the Founder of Zambia Online and Khama Institute. He is formerly a John S. Knight Fellow at Stanford University and Visiting Scholar to the Hoover Institution, a policy think tank at Stanford. He was also a Reagan Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington, DC. You can follow him on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/chandachisala.

123...5,640Page 2 of 5,640

Company

Trending

Categories

© Lusaka Times