We may have breached Vienna Convention

By GRACE CHAILE

THE Zambian government has submitted to the South African High Court that it is in breach of the Vienna Convention for suing the South African government in a matter it has dragged the family of former President Edgar Lungu to that country’s court demanding the release and repatriation of his remains.
State Counsel, Mulilo Kabesha, Zambia’s Attorney General has told the South African High Court that the Zambian Government’s decision to include South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation in a lawsuit concerning the burial of former President Lungu may have breached the Vienna Convention.
“The Minister (of International Relations and Cooperation FOR South Africa) was never a necessary party to the application, and no relief was or is sought against him. He was cited purely because of the potential interest he may have in the outcome,” Mr Kabesha stated in his submission.
But Mr Kabesha has now informed the South African High Court that the State was now intending to remove the South African government from the case, following its observation that his inclusion may have violated international diplomatic norms under the Vienna Convention.
Mr Kabesha made the submission during proceedings in which the Zambian government is challenging Mr Lungu’s family over their decision to bury the former head of State in South Africa against the desire of President Hakainde Hichilema and government to have him interred in Zambia.
The legal standoff followed the family’s decision to hold Mr Lungu’s remains to South Africa for burial, citing concerns over the government’s alleged mistreatment of the former president both in life and in death.
The Zambian government, however, insists that the burial of a former head of State on foreign soil is not only unconstitutional but undermines national dignity and protocol.
In its initial court filings, the Zambian government named several parties, including South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, as respondents in the matter.
He argued that objections by the family regarding the minister’s removal were unfounded and that the amendment to the application was both permissible and procedurally correct.