Recent public reactions to the reported postmortem conducted on former Zambian President Edgar Lungu have reignited a familiar but often misunderstood debate: Should families have the right to consent before a forensic postmortem is performed?
The short answer; both in South Africa and Zambia or anywhere else is no. And there are important legal, scientific, and public interest reasons for this.
A forensic postmortem is not the same as a hospital or “clinical” autopsy, which may indeed require family consent. A forensic (medico-legal) postmortem is a state-mandated investigation carried out when a death is sudden, unexplained, suspicious, or of public interest. In such cases, the body is no longer solely under the custodianship of the family; it becomes part of a legal inquiry.
In South Africa, the National Health Act and its Forensic Pathology Service Regulations, alongside the Inquests Act, empower the state to investigate deaths that are unnatural or unclear. Once a death falls into this category, a forensic postmortem can be ordered without family approval. Similarly, in Zambia, the Inquests Act and related medico-legal frameworks give the state authority to investigate certain deaths in the interest of justice and public accountability.
This is not a bureaucratic technicality, it is a safeguard. 
Requiring family consent in such cases would effectively allow individuals to veto investigations into deaths that may involve crime, negligence, or public risk. Imagine a scenario where a suspicious death is simply buried without examination because relatives object. Justice would be compromised before it even begins. The investigation of cause of death is not just a medical exercise; it is a cornerstone of law, public health, and governance. Determining how someone died can uncover crimes, expose systemic failures, identify public health threats, and ultimately protect the living. It is one of the few moments where medicine, law, and truth intersect with precision.
When the deceased is a public figure especially a former head of state; the stakes are even higher. A president is not just a private individual; they are a symbol of national leadership and institutional integrity. Allowing such a figure to be buried without a clear, medically established cause of death invites speculation, conspiracy theories, and erosion of public trust. In a world already saturated with misinformation, ambiguity is not neutral; it is dangerous.
Put simply: a nation should never be left guessing.
There is also a need to address a persistent misconception: that postmortems carry some form of spiritual or cultural violation. While such concerns deserve respectful acknowledgement, it is important to be clear that there is nothing mystical or spiritual about a postmortem. It is a scientific procedure conducted by trained professionals to answer specific, evidence-based questions about the body. It does not alter the dignity of the deceased; if anything, it affirms it by seeking truth and accountability.
It is understandable that families, especially in moments of grief, may feel distressed by the idea of a postmortem. Sensitivity and communication from authorities are essential. But the legal principle remains firm: in cases of forensic interest, the duty to investigate overrides the requirement for consent.
This is not an attack on families. It is a protection of society.
As nations striving for transparency and accountability, both Zambia and South Africa must uphold the integrity of death investigations, particularly when it involves individuals whose lives and deaths carry national significance. Anything less risks replacing truth with speculation, and justice with silence.
And that, far more than any postmortem, would be the real indignity.
Lt Col (RTD) Dr. Chomba Chama
Consultant Pathologist and Director – Healit Diagnostic Laboratory
Member of Forensic Pathology Sub-Committee of the Board of Directors of the National Forensic Authority.
