THE Lusaka Magistrate’s Court has acquitted a businessman who was claimed to be former President Edgar Lungu’s proxy in a case he was accused of possession of over 50 properties suspected of being proceeds of crime.
https://www.facebook.com/100064560977290/posts/1082173930611296/
The properties in issue, worth millions of kwacha, are linked to Pittscon Zambia Limited, which had been under Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) investigations.
ACC investigations revealed that Pittscon Zambia Limited owned a fleet of vehicles altogether valued at K7 million.
It was alleged that Mr Lungu’s alleged proxy Emmanuel Mugala owned 21 residential properties valued at K1 400,000.00, K3, 400,000, K1, 700,000 and K2, 600,000.
Further, an investigator testified that it was established that Mr Mugala possessed 14 shops worth K5,900,000.00, 14 shops valued K7,600,000 and Subdivision F of Subdivision No. 26 of F/9/6.
The court heard that in addition to the numbered plots, Mr Mugala also had various unnumbered plots whose value after valuation by the Government Valuation Department was K41, 800,000.00
The court heard that during investigations covering the period between 2018 and 2022, the only known source of income for Pittscon and Mr Mugala was the contracts for the periodic maintenance of selected feeder roads.
Mr Mugala was reported to possess four unnumbered plots valued at K26, 300,000.
In this case Mr Mugala was jointly charged with are Peter Malao, his son Edson Mugala and Lucy Simbeye.
They were jointly facing 19 charges of possession of property suspected of being proceeds of crime linked to Pittscon Zambia Limited where Mr Mugala, Mr Malao and Ms Simbeye are directors and shareholders.
At defence stage, the accused denied the allegations and that the Pittscon Zambia was duly was awarded contracts from the Ministry of Local Government and paid for works done and earned money.
Mr Mugala also told court that the investigator in the case only concentrated on Pittscon Zambia’s earnings instead of his other sources of income.
The accused also told court that during the material times, he used to buy and sell Kapenta and beans with a K2.8million working capital.
Edson Mugala also testified that the property he owns which is deemed proceeds of crime was gifted to him by his father.
After analysing the evidence from both parties, Lusaka principal resident magistrate Sanford Ngobola found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused persons.
He was left with no option but to free the accused of all 19 charges because the prosecution failed to prove that Pittston Zambia Limited had engaged in fraud.
“I also find that there is no proof on record that the properties in question are disproportionate to the known legitimate sources of income of the accused persons” magistrate Ngobola said.
“I acuity the accused persons of all the 19 counts…” the magistrate said.
The twist to the story is the properties in issue were last year in August forfeited to the State after the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) made an application at the High Court.
In a motion for the forfeiture, the DPP had submitted that the properties, which included cars, shops and houses in Chilanga, were a product of grand corruption.
(Mwebantu, Tuesday, 11th March, 2025)s
The dominoes are beginning to fall… I have always had problems with this “reasonably suspected” clause. Like those odious car stickers from the 17th Century, this does not make sense to me at all.
He wants to be the only rich Zambian.
His hatred for ECL has clouded his judgement.
Now the state will get sued and tax payers money will be used to compensate all his victims.
What a totally useless bitter little man we have.
God bless a Captain Ibrahim Traore, a proper leader of his people.
Vote wisely in 2026.
Ubushilu muchimutwe chobe insidgo dyron
Let the DPP or ACC Appeal the case some,
If any malpracticewas involved, or happened the truth will come out. It is just a matter of time
Investigative arms of the state lack the skills to do a proper job in these cases. It takes forensic accounting skills to crack these cases. But DEC and ACC pretend that they can put up an arguable case in court without forensic accounting. It’s not possible. Forensic analysis of the evidence can also reveal no crime and at that point investigations are supposed to close.