EFCC denies Faith Musonda appeal of forfeited properties
THE Economic and Financial Crime’s (EFCC) High Court division has denied Lusaka journalist, Faith Musonda leave to appeal a December 20, 2024, judgment that forfeited her properties to the State.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1E4RQTs84M/?mibextid=oFDknk
Musonda sought permission from the EFCC to proceed with an appeal to the court of appeal over her forfeited properties.
In an affidavit in support of the summons on her own behalf and on behalf of the second and fourth interested parties, Musonda expressed dissatisfaction with the said judgement and desired to appeal against it to the Court of Appeal.
Musonda sought permission to appeal the forfeiture to the Court of Appeal, arguing the initial ruling contained “substantive issues of contention” and that her appeal had “prospects of success.”
Musonda argued that the grounds upon which she wanted to appeal the judgement are robust on points of law and hold prospects of succeeding, hence the court should grant the order for leave to appeal.
The court on December 20, 2024 had forfeited properties belonging Musonda and others to the State saying the same were tainted with corruption.
The court also ordered that Musonda and four other interested parties’ properties which included houses in Ibex Hill, Kingsland city, farm in Chisamba, millions of money and other properties be forfeited to the State .
And the EFCC advised the Anti Corruption Commission ( ACC ) which was the applicant in the matter to use the properties according to what it deemed appropriate within the confines of the laws.
Musonda further argued that granting the application would not chase any prejudice but would serve the interests of justice.
“Upon the delivery of the judgement,the court did not explicitly grant leave to appeal and that based on the principle of justice and fairness, it is imperative that being dissatisfied with the decision of the court, they be granted leave to appeal to the court of appeal,” read the file.
“It was argued that it is a fundamental principle of justice that all parties involved in a legal proceeding must be afforded the opportunity to fully defend their case and that the principle encompasses the concept that a party should have a “second bite at the cherry”, meaning that they should be allowed to pursue all legal avenues available to them in order to present their arguments and evidence effectively.”
Musonda said the proposed appeal raises serious legal and factual issues in that the trial court erred in failing to address preliminary objections.
She argued that the trial court misapplied legal principles on forfeiture, improperly shifted the evidentiary burden contrary to established jurisprudence.
However, in the rendering ruling, Judge Susan Wanjelani rejected Musonda’s application, stating that the grounds of appeal lacked realistic prospects of success and that no compelling reasons for granting leave were presented.
Judge Wanjelani said the court found that the interested parties have not advanced any other compelling reasons for leave to be granted.
“For the foregoing reasons and based on the cited authorities we decline to grant leave to appeal the judgement dated December 20,2024,” ruled the court.
By Lucy Phiri
Kalemba March 6, 2025