It’s not surprising, we expected the State to grab our flats – Esther Lungu

It’s not surprising, we expected the State to grab our flats  – Esther Lungu

Former president Edgar Lungu and wife Esther yesterday left the Supreme Court with somber faces, having lost 15 luxury flats valued at a staggering K41.5 million to the State although the former first lady said she was not surprised.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/JAPe8ceS3KfaR8Yx/?mibextid=oFDknk

Whilst lawyer Sakwiba Sikota was briefing the media about the outcome of the case, Esther walked to her husband and leaned towards his left arm in search for calm and cheer in his space.

The despondent Esther maintained her poise as she closed her eyes to avoid being vulnerable before the glaring cameras paraded in front of her.

In this case the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had requested the Economic and Financial Crimes Court to forfeit Esther’s 15 semi-luxurious houses in State lodge area worth K41.5 million on reasons that they were acquired using illegal means.

Defending her properties, Esther claimed that though the 15 double storey flats were registered in her name, they are matrimonial property which were built by her husband Edgar Lungu.

When the matter came up for judgement before Judges Pixie Yangailo, Mwanajiti Mabbolobbolo and Vincent Siloka yesterday, the Court made pronouncements on the matter in chambers amid tight security.

Despite the lawyers having requested earlier that judgement be held in open Court, plain cloth police officers were standing guard at at the entrance of the courtroom and turned the media away on the premise that the fourth estate and the public inclusive, were barred from entering the courtroom.

The judgement was still not made available by close of business, for reference by the media.

According to sources, the court forfeited Esther’s houses on grounds that she did not produce enough evidence to prove that she built the properties with clean money.

The Economic and Financial Crimes Court said the value of the flats were way beyond Esther’s legal income.

It said her charity organization, the Esther Lungu Foundation did not generate enough income which she could rely on to purchase the properties.

It was further disclosed by the source that the Court refused to buy into Esther’s explanation that the 15 double-storey flats were matrimonial properties which were built by her husband, as she did not show the movement of money from her husband to her account or to the contractor’s account to prove her claim that he built the properties and where he got the money to build the same.

The court found that  Kwaleyela Mukelabai’s teammate, Emmanuel Khondowe, a senior investigations officer at the Drug Enforcement Commission under the Anti-money laundering Investigations Unit proved that the 15 flats were tainted; and ordered for their forfeiture.

It also directed that Director of Public Prosecutions Gilbert Phiri disposes of the property in a manner he deems fit within the confines of the law.

Esther’s lawyer Sakwiba Sikota said  he will challenge the confiscation of the former first lady’s property in the Court of Appeal.

“So, naturally, we will be appealing to the court of appeal and I’m sure the court of appeal is going to maintain the position they have stated in the other case,” he said.

“The court stated that the onus to prove was on the interested party rather than on the applicant. And they stated that the applicant had a very low bar which they had to attain.”

Sikota said he was as convicted that the Director of Public Prosecutions did not meet the standards for the burden of proof.

“So, those are the issues that will go up to the Court of Appeal for the Court of Appeal to decide. The Court of Appeal has started what it feels is the correct position and we are going to go to the Court of Appeal telling them that we believe you were right. So, obviously our prospects are good,”said Sikota

And Charles Changano said the Court relied on the Austin Liato case which was a conviction based forfeiture, while Esther’s case is a non-conviction based forfeiture.

“So, we still want the Supreme Court to guide over these new cases. You remember the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act was enacted in  2010. My question is, why is it (Court) now acting on the former president and the family?,”he questioned.

“There were no cases for 14 years? Those are some of the issues we will look at. Maybe you are also surprised? Enacted in April 2010, you will tell me that there is no reasonable suspicion in this country when it was enacted? It was enacted because there must be some suspicion somewhere. Why was it sleeping for 14 years only to touch on this family?.”

And Esther who surrendered her flats said; “it was expected it’s not surprising.”

By Mwaka Ndawa

Kalemba September 27, 2024