Court of Appeal Sets New Forfeiture Precedent: Impact on Chiluba’s Case
By Gregory Mofu
In a significant judgment, the Court of Appeal has established a crucial precedent for forfeiture cases by emphasizing the necessity of linking the property to a serious crime. This ruling has far-reaching implications, particularly for the case of late former Republican President Dr. Frederick Chiluba, whose assets were seized by the State without those assets being subject to litigation now over 20 years.
The Court of Appeal’s guidance is clear: mere suspicion or lack of known income is insufficient to justify forfeiture. Prosecutors must now demonstrate a tangible connection between the property and a serious offense. This sets a higher bar for forfeiture, protecting individuals from unjust seizures.
In the case of Sydney Mwansa v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Appeal No. 276/2021), the Court of Appeal overturned a lower court’s decision and ordered the return of the property to its owner. This ruling underscores the importance of evidence and due process in forfeiture cases.
This landmark case has significant implications for President Chiluba’s assets, which were seized following allegations of financial wrongdoing during his tenure. Despite his acquittal, the assets remain in the State’s possession. The Court of Appeal’s ruling suggests that the State must demonstrate a clear connection between the assets and a serious offense, beyond mere suspicion or lack of known income.
In the case of the former President, the state lost the case in 2010 and were meant to return his assets. They failed to appeal within the legal period of 30 days and waited for the demise of Dr Chiluba months later to appeal seize his assets. In fact, the state even argued that they were seizing the assets because he did not claim them back. Tedworth, for example, was even changed to Pendulum Estates by the state. These errors, have not been rectified to this day despite that government found no use of public funds in the purchase of those assets.
The return of President Chiluba’s assets to his family would be a significant victory for justice and the rule of law. It would also set a precedent for future forfeiture cases, ensuring that individuals are protected from unjust seizures and that the State respects the rights of its citizens.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal’s landmark ruling has raised the bar for forfeiture cases, emphasizing the need for evidence and due process. This has significant implications for President Chiluba’s case and beyond, promoting justice and the protection of individual rights.
This is dead in the water. The Tedworth Properties issue was litigated in court and there was legal defence in both the High Court and Supreme Court. The state did not just seize the assets but started by restricting them. In ensuing proceedings in courts of law, no evidence was provided to challenge the Anti-Corruption Commission’s action by what the nation is now being told were Frederick Chiluba’s lawyers.
“Kanshi Cha opena manje we.” Thieves will enjoy their properties.How will you link them to a case.Batolele fye and you didn’t see them steal and no one complaining of missing money or property.But you can smell the rat.This needs to be relooked at.Let us be serious in this country.Merry go round every where.Zigzag.
All those properties were bought using zamtrop funds. Chiluba refused to attend court to defend this acquisitions because he knew the truth will prevail and he will be defeated. All the properties therefore rightly belong to the state. In fact he is even lucky he died because he was supposed to be in prison if rupiah had not saved him.