DETAILED COURT UPDATE BY NPA:
HIGH COURT UPHOLDS LUSAMBO CONVICTIONS AS ALL SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL STAND DISMISSED
Lusaka | February 27, 2026 – The Economic and Financial Crimes Division of the High Court has today dismissed all six grounds of appeal filed by former Lusaka Province Minister Bowman Lusambo, fully upholding his convictions for corruption, possession of property suspected to be proceeds of crime, and tax evasion.
A panel of three judges, Lady Justices S. M. Wanjelani, P. K. Yangailo, and A. Malata-Ononuju, heard the appeal, with Lady Justice Malata-Ononuju delivering the judgment.
The State was represented by Senior State Advocate Mrs. Susan Mwamba-Besa from the General and Appeals Department in the National Prosecution Authority. She was assisted by Ms. Tendai Shumba, Senior Prosecutions Officer from the Anti-Corruption Commission and Ms. Lorraine Tembo a state Advocate from the NPA’s Economic and Financial Crimes Department.
The Appellant was represented by Mmes. D. Findlay & Associates and Makebi Zulu & Partners.
Mr. Lusambo challenged his convictions on six grounds:
- That the trial court lacked sufficient evidence to convict him of corruptly acquiring public property.
- That there was no evidence linking him to property reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime.
- That his tax evasion convictions were against the weight of evidence. As argued in the Appellant’s grounds 3, 4 and 6.
- That the trial court erred in evaluating and weighing the evidence.
- That the court’s analysis was unbalanced or biased.
The State opposed all grounds of appeal, and the Court agreed fully with their submissions. In opposition to the Appellant’s first ground of Appeal, Mrs. Besa argued that the evidence presented at the trial clearly demonstrated that Mr. Lusambo, in his capacity as Copperbelt Province Minister, orchestrated the allocation of Lot 39876/M to Frontier Management Services Limited (FMSL), a company in which he had no legal interest. The State submitted that the trial court had correctly convicted Lusambo for corruptly acquiring public property contrary to section 34(1)(a) as read with section 41 of the Anti-Corruption Act, No. 3 of 2012.
According to the State, Mr. Lusambo abused his ministerial office to acquire land through FMSL, effectively bypassing the company’s directors and shareholders. Evidence before the trial court showed that in April 2017, PW1, Enerst Malangazo Sumani, then Town Clerk for Ndola City Council, was summoned to Lusambo’s office and instructed to allocate the land to FMSL.
The company’s directors and shareholders were completely unaware of the transaction, and the Chief Surveyor, Dr. Chisala, confirmed that none of the director or shareholders had contacted council officials regarding the property. Instead, Mr. Lusambo personally handled the land application, exerting pressure on council officers and threatening them with transfers should they fail to comply.
The State further highlighted that Mr. Lusambo subsequently sold the land to Jignesh Soni Prosecution Witness number 7 (PW7) for K880,000, routing the payment through Sylvia Mutale Prosecution Witness number 20 (PW20), from whom Mr. Lusambo purchased a Range Rover. Mrs. Besa emphasised that Mr. Lusambo did not dispute these facts during cross-examination, and the combined testimonies of PW1, PW7, and PW20 painted a compelling picture of fraudulent acquisition and direct abuse of ministerial authority. The Court agreed with the State that these actions clearly demonstrated the corrupt and unlawful use of public office for personal gain.
In ground two, the Appellant argued that the trial court had erred in convicting him of possession of property, namely the Range Rover, reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime, asserting that there was no evidence linking the transaction in Kitwe, the purchase of the vehicle, to the sale of property to Jignesh Soni, which he claimed was owned by Mr. Lusambo’s sister-in-law.
The State, however, contended that both the K880,000, representing the sale price of the land unlawfully acquired as discussed under ground one, and the Range Rover were inextricably linked to the corrupt acquisition of the land. This connection, the State argued, was sufficient to meet the legal definition of property reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime. Mr. Lusambo’s efforts to dissociate himself from these transactions, the State emphasised, were unsupported by any credible evidence, and the trial court had correctly inferred his possession and use of the funds for personal gain.
In relation to grounds three, four, and six, the Appellant stated that the trial court had erred in convicting him of tax evasion, claiming the convictions were against the weight of the evidence.
The State, however, maintained that Mr. Lusambo had willfully evaded property transfer tax on three distinct properties. These included S/D B of Farm No. 288a, Lusaka, on which $7,500 was unpaid; Lot No. 19884/M, Lusaka, with $4,250 evaded, where the sale had been falsely represented as conducted by Apache Trading Limited; and MASAI/LN-1003028/218, Masaiti, for which K7,500 remained unpaid.
The State’s position on these grounds was that Mr. Lusambo had deliberately structured the sales to avoid tax liabilities and had failed to provide any credible evidence to explain the transactions. This conduct, the Court concluded, demonstrated a clear and willful intent to evade his tax obligations.
In ground five, the Appellant argued that the trial court got it wrong in law and fact by analysing the evidence in an unbalanced manner.
In opposing this ground, the State submitted that the trial court had properly and impartially assessed the evidence before reaching its conclusions. Counsel for the Respondent argued that to sustain a conviction for possession of property reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime, it was necessary to prove that the accused possessed the property and that there were articulable facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion that it was derived from criminal conduct.
The State emphasised that possession was not in dispute, as the Appellant admitted purchasing properties identified and marked in court and directing that they be registered in his wife’s name. The central issue was the source of the funds. The Appellant failed to provide a credible, logical or verifiable explanation for the substantial cash and dollar payments used to acquire the properties, and the documents he relied upon did not constitute proof of payment.
The State, therefore, maintained that the trial court’s findings were grounded in objective evidence and established legal principles. The Court agreed with this argument, holding that the evidence had been analysed in a balanced and legally sound manner.
Verdict
All six grounds of appeal were dismissed. Mr. Lusambo’s convictions and sentences remain intact, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to holding public officials accountable for corruption, abuse of office, and financial crimes.
This judgment sends a strong signal that no one is above the law, and that attempts to manipulate public office for personal gain will be met with the full force of justice.
