Court reminds Lusambo that “lots of appeal grounds” is not a legal loyalty card
The Court of Appeal has politely informed former Lusaka Province minister Bowman Lusambo that filing an appeal with enough grounds to plant a maize field does not automatically earn a free trip home, dismissing his renewed application for bail pending appeal.
Lusaka, 8 August – Lusambo, who is serving a four-year sentence after being convicted by the Lusaka Magistrates’ Court on November 18, 2024, over offences including abuse of authority of office, tax evasion and possession of property reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime, returned to court hoping the sequel would have a happier ending than the original.
Instead, Justice Betty Majula delivered what legal observers might describe as the judicial equivalent of, “Nice try, but no.”
The renewed application, filed under Section 18(1)(a) of the Court of Appeal Act No. 7 of 2016 after the High Court’s Economic and Financial Crimes Division had already declined bail, argued that Lusambo had several grounds of appeal worth considering
Justice Majula agreed they were worth considering. She just wasn’t prepared to consider them as a ticket out of prison.
“The Applicant’s proposed grounds raise questions concerning corporate ownership, evidentiary linkage, the statutory ingredients of the offences, and the treatment of the payment said to have been made in connection with the property,” she noted.
She added that those issues belong before the full appellate panel, not in what appeared to be an early attempt to skip to the “happy ending” chapter.
The judge stressed that an appeal being arguable is very different from it being likely to succeed, a distinction lawyers appreciate and disappointed applicants generally wish came with smaller print.
“The Court must guard against confusing an arguable appeal with an appeal that has demonstrated a prima facie likelihood of success,” she ruled, effectively reminding everyone that quantity and quality have never been identical twins.
Justice Majula observed that simply presenting numerous grounds of appeal does not magically transform them into winning lottery numbers.
The court also considered Lusambo’s argument that he could serve a substantial portion of his sentence before the appeal is heard. While acknowledging the possibility, Justice Majula ruled that this concern alone could not outweigh the legal test governing bail pending appeal.
In other words, the judicial system does not operate on a “first come, first released” basis.
The court further found no evidence that the appeal was likely to suffer unreasonable delays, describing suggestions of future hold-ups as speculative rather than inevitable.
Lusambo’s fixed residence, previous compliance with bail conditions and willingness to obey future conditions also failed to impress the court sufficiently.
Justice Majula noted that such factors may reassure the court that someone is unlikely to disappear, but they are hardly extraordinary once a conviction has already been entered.
Translation: being where you said you’d be during trial is commendable, but after conviction, the legal goalposts have packed their bags and moved.
Having weighed everything together, the Court concluded that the application simply did not meet the threshold required for bail pending appeal.
For now, Lusambo’s appeal remains alive, but his request to watch it unfold from outside prison has once again been shown the courthouse exit.
©Nkanionline 2026 #NewsOnDemand