Funeral row causes chaos for mourners of Zambia’s ex-president
Arranging a funeral can be testing at the best of times – let alone for a former head of state. Amid that intense, initial stage of grief, loved ones must juggle cost, the wishes of the deceased and numerous other factors in order to throw a fitting send-off. Add the clashing desires of a national government and its political opponents into the mix, and things become doubly complicated. Edgar Lungu, who led Zambia from 2015 to 2021, died last Thursday. His death at the age of 68 has shocked Zambians – and there is genuine sense of grief with all radio stations playing gospel music for the man who had remained influential in Zambian politics despite being barred from contesting next year’s election. Zambia is officially a Christian country – and most people take their religion and periods of mourning seriously. But a standoff between his family, the government and Lungu’s political party, the Patriotic Front (PF), has left mourners confused about how exactly the former president should be honoured. The government announced there would be a state funeral and declared that the official venue for mourning would be a lodge it owns in the capital, Lusaka, but the PF dismissed this plan, directing mourners to its headquarters instead. As for Lungu’s family, they have said they are not opposed to a state funeral, but have insisted on choosing who will preside over it, family lawyer Makebi Zulu has told the Centenary Radio. Then there is the official book of condolence, in which mourners can pay tributes to Lungu. The government has set up an official book – at the lodge – but the PF has urged people to sign theirs instead – at their headquarters. The government wanted to repatriate his body from South Africa last week – Lungu died there after receiving treatment for an undisclosed illness. However, the PF and Lungu’s family intervened, wanting to organise the safe passage of the ex-leader themselves. “The state was saying, ‘We are giving him full military honours, therefore we’re taking over from here’ – as if to say that ‘you have no say over what happens,’” Mr Zulu said. Plans for returning Lungu’s remains are still unclear, though the family are now engaging with the government on this issue. There has also been confusion over the “official” mourning period when all forms of entertainment like big football matches and concerts are stopped. The government declared a seven-day national mourning period starting last Saturday, even though the PF announced one days earlier. This chaos is, in short, a continuation of the tumultuous relationship between Lungu and his successor, President Hakainde Hichilema. The pair are long-time rivals – in 2017, when Lungu was president, he had Hichilema locked up for over 100 days on treason charges after Hichilema’s motorcade allegedly refused to give way for him. It took the intervention of the Commonwealth for Hichilema to be released. Four years later, and after five attempts at the presidency, Hichilema defeated Lungu. Now, the PF and the Lungu family’s lawyer are accusing Hichilema’s government of being partly responsible for the former president’s death. Lungu returned to frontline politics in 2023, frequently accusing Hichilema’s government of victimising him and other PF members. Now, after Lungu’s death, his party allege that Lungu was banned from leaving the country for years and that if he had been allowed to travel to seek medical treatment sooner, he might still be alive. The government has vehemently denied any responsibility for Lungu’s death, with spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa insisting that the ex-president was never prohibited from travelling. Mr Mweetwa told our reporter that the PF was trying to use Lungu’s death as a “springboard” for a “political comeback”. It is not the first time conflict has broken out following a Zambian leader’s death. In 2021, the family of Kenneth Kaunda, the country’s first post-independence president, said he wanted to be laid to rest next to his wife and not at the site designated by the government. Despite this, the government went ahead and buried Kaunda at Embassy Memorial Park in Lusaka. “The High Court ruled that national interest takes precedence over individual or family preferences because there is a designated burial place for former presidents, and there is a designated set of protocol to handle those proceedings that are conducted by the state, not a political party,” Mr Mweetwa said. This argument – about the state’s rights to a dead president’s body – has played out numerous times across Africa. In 2019, Robert Mugabe died almost two years after being unseated as Zimbabwe’s president by his former right-hand man, Emmerson Mnangagwa. Mugabe’s family refused to allow him to be buried at the national Heroes’ Acre, arguing that he had been betrayed by his former colleagues. After a bitter feud, the man who had led Zimbabwe to independence was laid to rest after his state funeral in his home village. But a legal row rumbles on over his burial site, with some still wanting him to be interred at Heroes’ Acre, where a mausoleum has now been completed for him. And loved ones rarely won such disputes. The relatives of Angola’s José Eduardo dos Santos and various Ghanaian presidents have clashed with the government over post-death arrangements, but all eventually had to yield to the state. In Lungu’s case, the government has the constitution – the supreme law of the land – behind it, but the PF has significant clout as the former leader’s long-time political home. In an attempt to break the standoff, the government has sent envoys to South Africa to negotiate with Lungu’s family, where a private memorial service was held at Pretoria’s Sacred Heart Cathedral on Tuesday – organised by the PF. This was attended by his widow and daughter and where it was announced to the congregation that the former president’s body would not be flown home on Wednesday as had been expected. So for those in Zambia, there is still no clear direction on how to
Massive Russian drone attack slams Kyiv and hits maternity hospital in Odesa, Ukrainian officials say
Russia launched 315 drones at Ukraine overnight into Tuesday, in what Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said was “one of the largest” attacks on the capital Kyiv, as officials said a maternity ward in the southern port city of Odesa had been hit. Seven districts of the capital were damaged by the Russian attacks, which burned high-rise buildings, homes, cars and warehouses, according to Tymur Tkachenko, head of the Kyiv city military administration, who said it was a “tough night for all of us.” Russian drone strikes wounded four people, according to Kyiv mayor Vitaliy Klitschko. “Today was one of the largest attacks on Kyiv,” Zelensky wrote on X. “Russian missile and Shahed strikes drown out the efforts of the United States and others around the world to force Russia into peace.” Air raid sirens blared for hours and Kyiv residents heard regular explosions through the night, and air defense systems have been working non-stop in the city center, a CNN producer said. At least two men were killed and nine wounded in the strikes on Odesa, according to a Telegram post from the region’s Prosecutor’s Office. Earlier, a Russian attack struck a maternity ward, according to according to Andriy Yermak, Chief of Presidential Staff. Russia also launched two KN-23 ballistic missiles and five Iskander-K cruise missiles in the overnight attack, Ukraine’s Air Force said. The overnight attacks follow Russia’s biggest drone strike on Ukraine on Monday, where Russia fired 479 UAVs in an overnight aerial assault, surpassing the highest number of drones Moscow has launched in a single day for the second consecutive weekend.
Donald Trump has signed a ban on travel to the US from 12 countries citing national security risks, according to the White House.
There are also seven additional countries whose nationals will face a partial travel restrictions. The US president said the list could be revised if “material improvements” were made and additional countries could be added as “threats emerge around the world”. This is the second time he has ordered a ban on travel from certain countries. He signed a similar order in 2017, during his first term in office. Which countries are affected? Trump has signed a proclamation banning travel to the US from nationals of 12 countries: Nationals from these countries will not be allowed to enter the US unless they qualify for an exception. There are an additional seven countries whose nationals face partial travel restrictions: Countries hit by the partial restrictions will not be able to travel to the US with certain visas. The ban takes effect on Monday at 12:01 (05:01 BST), a cushion that avoids the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice eight years ago. No end date has been provided; the order calls for periodic review. Why has a ban been announced? The White House said these “common sense restrictions” would “protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors”. In a video posted to his Truth Social website, Trump said the recent alleged terror attack in Boulder, Colorado “underscored the extreme dangers” posed by foreign nationals who had not been “properly vetted”. Twelve people were injured in Colorado on Sunday when a man attacked a group gathering in support of Israeli hostages, throwing two incendiary devices and using a makeshift flamethrower. The man accused of carrying out the attack has been identified as an Egyptian national, but Egypt is not included on the list of banned countries. Trump has close ties with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has in the past been described by the US president as his “favourite dictator”. Only two of the 19 countries are on the US government’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list – Iran, which has a full ban, and Cuba, which has partial travel restrictions. But national security is given as a partial reason for his choice of countries. In the proclamation, Trump said many of these countries listed have a “historic failure to accept back their removable nationals” for the US, as well as having “taken advantage” of the US by exploiting its visa system. He added that nationals from certain countries also “pose significant risks” of overstaying their visas. What exemptions are there? There are a number of people from affected countries who may still be able to enter the US due to a number of exceptions. The order does not apply to: In addition, the Secretary of State may grant exemptions to individuals on a “case-by-case” basis, if “the individual would serve a United States national interest”. What has been the reaction to the ban? Trump’s latest order, which is expected to face legal challenges, drew a swift response, at home and abroad. Somalia promised to work with the United States to address any security issues. In a statement, Somali ambassador to the US, Dahir Hassan Abdi, said his country “values its longstanding relationship” with America. Venezuela’s Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello warned that “being in the United States is a great risk for anyone, not just for Venezuelans”. The African Union, which represents all 55 countries on the African continent, called on the US to “engage in constructive dialogue with the countries concerned”. It appealed to the US to exercise its sovereign right to protect its borders and its citizens’ security “in a manner that is balanced, evidence-based, and reflective of the long-standing partnership between the United States and Africa”. The union said it remains concerned about the “potential negative impact of such measures”. Democrats were quick to condemn the move. “This ban, expanded from Trump’s Muslim ban in his first term, will only further isolate us on the world stage,” Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat congresswoman from Washington, says in a social media post. Another Democrat, congressman Don Beyer, says Trump “betrayed” the ideals of the US’ founders. Human rights groups have also criticised the ban. Amnesty International USA described it as “discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel”, while the US-based Human Rights First, called it “yet another anti-immigrant and punitive action taken” by the president. What happened last time? Trump ordered his original travel ban during his first term in the White House in 2017. It featured some of the same countries as his latest order, including Iran, Libya and Somalia. Critics called it a “Muslim ban” as the seven countries initially listed were Muslim majority, and it was immediately challenged in courts across the US. The White House revised the policy, ultimately adding two non-Muslim majority countries, North Korea and Venezuela. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. President Joe Biden, who succeeded Trump, repealed the ban in 2021, calling it “a stain on our national conscience.”