It is not a crime for responsible parents to support their children – Chiyeso Lungu
LAWYER Chiyeso Lungu says the 2.2268 hectares of land on Lot no. 9390/M in state lodge area which she purchased at K3 million in April 2017 was paid for by her parents Edgar and Esther Lungu.
Chiyeso insists who the properties were legitimately acquired saying and she has no concrete reason to suspect or doubt her parents’ capacity to raise the K3, 000, 000 which they gifted her to buy the property which encompasses a fancy “high -cost house” and four chicken runs.
In this case the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has moved a motion of a non conviction based forfeiture order in the Economic and Financial Crimes Court seeking a relief that Chiyeso’s properties be forfeited to the State.
Among the properties to be seized are two farms with a high-cost house, four chicken runs, Crest lodge and three flats in Lusaka’s State Lodge area, worth K9, 375, 438.62, acquired between 2013 and 2021
DEC senior investigations officer Emmanuel Khondowe on behalf of the DPP argued that the former president’s daughter has assets that are disproportionate to her income neither did she have viable sources of income.
In an Affidavit in opposition to the application for non-conviction based forfeiture order, Chiyeso charged that Khondowe is not a certified bean counter and cannot offer financial analysis as evidence before court.
Chiyeso who bragged about her father’s accomplishment as legal practitioner since he was called to the bar in 1981 and his employment record in PF until he rose to the rank of president on January 25, 2015, said she is being maliciously prosecuted by the State.
She described her graft case as abuse of court process.
“It is not a crime for responsible parents to support their children in the manner my parents have consistently done,” Lungu’s daughter said.
Chiyeso explained that, at the time she was purchasing the first property it was already developed with improvements being referred to as “high-cost house”and the four chicken runs.
She said Khondowe’s failure to differentiate the cost of purchasing and construction of the house is as a result of negligence, innocent mistakes or efforts carefully calculated at misleading the Court.
She said in 2019 she applied to the Ministry of Lands, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection that she be allocated the piece of land which is in front of the first property and on August 20, 2020, she was given an invitation to treat for property no. LUSAK/LN_79093 on a condition that the offer letter would be given upon payment of K5, 638. 68.
Lungu’s daughter said on September 15, 2020 she paid the said amount to the ministry and the commissioner of lands proceeded to issue an offer letter.
“As an officer of this Court practicing law in the firm of Messrs Muyatwa legal practitioners from where I earn a monthly salary, I had full capacity to pay K5, 638. 68,” Chiyeso claimed.
“I have not built any flats on the second property depositions by Khondowe alleging that I have built 3 flats on the second property are either emanating from poor or incoherent investigations or are designed to create misrepresentations before this court.”
She charged that the DPP cannot categorise her property as tainted without the Court making such a determination.
“Both properties are mine and do not form proceeds of crime as they were lawfully purchased with legal and traceable sources of income,” Chiyeso said.
In her skeleton arguments, Chiyeso said under Sections 29 and 31 of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act the property can only be grabbed by the State if it is declared tainted and the same can only be done if a crime was committed.
She argued that without evidence that the property was realized through grand corruption, the court cannot make a decision based on conjecture.
“This court is urged to hold that the DPP’s application has failed to outline what offence was committed by Chiyeso in connection with the properties sought to be forfeited to the State and as such the Court’s powers under Section 29 and 31 of the FPOCA cannot be invoked,”said Chiyeso
“Such an application cannot stand premised on feelings but on the facts placed on record.
The DPP brought no piece or trace of evidence pointing to either of the four elements of tainted property as such the standard required by sections 31(1) and 34 of the FPOCA has not been met as such the court is beseeched to dismiss the application with costs to the interested party.”
By Mwaka Ndawa
Kalemba