COMMENTARY ON THE LIVINGSTONE MAYOR CORRUPTION FINDING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ZAMBIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

COMMENTARY ON THE LIVINGSTONE MAYOR CORRUPTION FINDING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ZAMBIAN CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE

Introduction

The judgment arising from the Livingstone Mayor corruption matter presents a troubling contradiction. On the one hand, the court expressly found that the accused, acting in her official capacity as Mayor of Livingstone, corruptly obtained a gratification of K180,000.00 in exchange for securing a 100% remission of property rates owed to the Livingstone City Council.

On the other hand, the court declined to sustain criminal liability under Count Two on the basis that the funds were transmitted through intermediaries rather than directly from the person named in the indictment.

This commentary argues that, as a matter of law, principle, and public policy, the latter conclusion is inconsistent with the Penal Code, settled criminal doctrine in Zambia, and the broader anti-corruption framework.

Corruption as a Substantive Offence, Not a Transactional Technicality
Under Zambian criminal law, corruption is not defined by the path taken by money, but by:

the corrupt intent (mens rea), and

the abuse of public office for private gain (actus reus).

Once a court finds that a public officer corruptly received or agreed to receive a gratification in connection with an official act, the offence is complete.

This principle has been repeatedly affirmed by Zambian courts when interpreting offences involving abuse of office, theft by public servant, and corruption-related crimes.
The focus has never been—and must never become—the elegance or complexity of the payment mechanism.

Statutory Position Under the Penal Code (Cap 87)
Section 21 – Parties to Offences
Section 21 of the Penal Code provides that any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of an offence is deemed to have taken part in committing that offence and is criminally liable as a principal offender.

Applied to the present facts:

the intermediaries (Oliver Perry and PW3) are, at law, agents or accomplices, not legal shields;

the accused, as the ultimate beneficiary and decision-maker, remains fully liable.

The Penal Code does not recognise “distance” from the source of funds as a defence. Section 22 – Counselling or Procuring

Section 22 extends liability to any person who counsels or procures the commission of an offence, whether or not that person personally executes each step.

Zambian courts have consistently interpreted this provision broadly, recognising that complex crimes—especially economic and corruption offences—are often executed through layers of intermediaries.
To hold otherwise is to reward sophistication in criminal design.

Section 23 – Accessories Before or After the Fact
Section 23 criminalises knowing participation before or after the commission of an offence. A public officer who knowingly receives proceeds of a corrupt transaction cannot escape liability merely because the transaction was structured through third parties.

Zambian Judicial Approach to Criminal Responsibility (Principle-Based)
While each corruption case turns on its own facts, Zambian courts have long rejected hyper-technical interpretations that defeat the substance of criminal justice.

The Supreme Court of Zambia has repeatedly emphasised that:
criminal law must be interpreted purposively, and
courts must guard against interpretations that defeat legislative intent, particularly in public-interest offences.
In corruption and abuse-of-office matters, the identity of the conduit has never been treated as more important than the corrupt benefit and official abuse.

Persuasive Commonwealth Authority (Accepted in Zambia)
Zambian courts routinely rely on persuasive Commonwealth jurisprudence where domestic authority is limited. Courts across the Commonwealth have consistently held that:

“The use of intermediaries does not negate criminal liability where the accused knowingly receives a corrupt benefit connected to an official act.”
This principle has been applied in cases involving bribery, conspiracy, and joint enterprise, reinforcing that criminal liability follows intent and benefit, not transaction choreography.

The Dangerous Precedent Created. The implication of the Livingstone finding, if left unchallenged in principle, is severe:

It undermines anti-corruption enforcement
It creates a blueprint for evasion by public officers
It signals that corruption becomes legally survivable if properly “outsourced”

It weakens public confidence in equal application of the law
Most dangerously, it creates a public perception problem—that political proximity or affiliation may coincide with legal insulation. Whether true or not, justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.
Perception alone, when fuelled by reasoning of this nature, erodes the moral authority of the justice system.

Conclusion

Once the court found that the Mayor corruptly obtained K180,000.00 in exchange for abusing public office, criminal liability was established in law. The route by which the money travelled is legally incidental, not exculpatory.

The Penal Code criminalises corruption directly or indirectly obtained.

It criminalises participation through intermediaries.

It criminalises benefiting from corrupt schemes, regardless of structure.

Any interpretation that suggests otherwise does not advance justice it invites impunity.

Final Note (Measured but Clear)
This commentary does not attack the judiciary. It defends the integrity of the law.
But it also serves as a warning: bad precedent is more dangerous than a bad judgment, because precedent outlives personalities and politics.

If corruption can be laundered through intermediaries and survive judicial scrutiny, then the very foundation of equality before the law is at risk.

Simpamba Abraham
Together We Can
Ichalo Bantu!🫵