Makebi Zulu walked into DJ Showstar’s interview armed with confidence but light on substance, tossing out one of the most bizarre statements in recent political commentary: “The President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, not Commander-in-Chief of funerals.”
A cute line, perhaps. But politically naïve, institutionally ignorant, immature and diplomatically reckless.
Let’s straighten the record this way, question by question. 
If funerals of former Heads of State carry no diplomatic weight, why do nations deploy full State protocol?
Across democracies, funerals of former Presidents are not social gatherings. They are State occasions.
They affirm continuity of the Republic. They show unity above partisan cycles. They communicate institutional maturity to regional and global observers.
So, the real question to Makebi is:
Why does every serious democracy elevate these funerals to the highest level of protocol?
Are they all confused, or is it your understanding that is shallow?
If the President represents the unity of the nation, how does his absence not have implications?
A Head of State is the face of the Republic in triumph, crisis, and closure.
The funeral of a former President is not about an individual; it is about the office.
Question for Makebi:
Can a nation that fails to show institutional respect claim political stability? And what signal does absenteeism send to cooperating partners, neighbours, and observers?
If the Armed Forces salute a former President at his burial, does the Commander-in-Chief suddenly become optional?
State funerals involve the Zambia Army, Zambia Police, the Air Force, Military Honours, and National Protocol.
Who commands these?
The Commander-in-Chief.
So, another question for Makebi:
How do you separate the President from a ceremony in which every institution under his command plays a central role?
Makebi’s statement collapses under basic logic.
If President Hichilema’s absence is supposedly harmless, why did PF elites cry foul when previous Presidents skipped similar ceremonies?
Political memory is long.
Makebi’s attempt to trivialise this moment contradicts years of PF’s own rhetoric on presidential presence, unity, and respect for the office of the former Head of State.
Ask him:
Has consistency stopped being a principle, or is convenience now the new doctrine?
If you reduce the funerals of former Presidents to “private events,” what does that say about your respect for national institutions?
State leadership is not about personal liking or political wounds. It’s about preserving the dignity of the Republic.
Thus: When did we start treating State protocol as optional décor? Who benefits from eroding institutional norms, Zambia or partisan opportunism?
BOTTOM LINE: MAKEBI’S COMMENT WASN’T JUST IGNORANT. IT WAS INSTITUTIONALLY DANGEROUS
This wasn’t a slip of the tongue. It was a loud demonstration of political illiteracy disguised as bravado.
A former President’s funeral is a constitutional moment, a diplomatic theatre, and a national mirror. Pretending otherwise is not clever. It’s careless.
Makebi wanted to be punchy. Instead, he punched holes in his own argument.
The test leaves him with only one conclusion to confront:
If you can not differentiate a political joke from a constitutional duty, what exactly are you trying to teach the nation?
Whatever Makebi is trying to say proves a point that they are hiding something, evidenced in the high intelligence alert that Makebi and his cronies were about to despatch an empty casket to Zambia.
Information currently shows that the South Africa government is not happy with the Lungu Family.
