The South African Police Service (SAPS) has issued a subpoena to Two Mountains Funeral Services, where the late former president of Zambia, Edgar Lungu's body, lies, directing that the body of the late former president be released into police custody.
SAPS have also quizzed 5 members of the late Lungu's family in an investigation that suggests that the former president may have been poisoned.
Lungu died on June 5 last year in a South African clinic, but his body remains stuck in a mortuary in that country, eight months on, due to an ongoing repatriation-related legal battle between the Zambian government and the former president's family.
The matter has now taken a dramatic twist, as the South African Police Service has formally summoned and recorded statements from five family members as part of a criminal probe into the alleged poisoning.
This is according to a letter written by Mashele Attorneys Inc., the law firm representing the former first family.
In the letter, the lawyers confirm that they had complied with five summonses issued in connection with the poisoning investigation.
The lawyers did not state who exactly from the Lungu had been brought in for questioning.
The lawyers said statements requested from their clients had been delivered in accordance with the criminal proceedings and that the family remains committed to cooperating with the investigation within the bounds of the law.
The family has since denied the poisoning allegations.
The lawyers stated that their clients maintain the allegations are unfounded and unsupported by credible evidence and that this position has already been placed on official record.
The letter also reveals that the police have demanded, through a subpoena, Lungu's body in their custody.
However, the family's lawyers have objected to the move, arguing that two existing High Court orders clearly state that the body must remain with the funeral home pending the finalisation of the legal proceedings.
They further noted that leave to appeal has already been granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
They have instead insisted that the appeal is therefore alive, and at this juncture the operative court orders remain in force and must be respected pending the outcome of the appellate process.
In the absence of a judicial variation or further order authorising removal, no person or entity is legally permitted to act inconsistently with those directives.
The lawyers further said the family demands strict compliance with the existing court orders and that any action taken in contravention thereof would be unlawful and subject to appropriate legal action.