The Dalitso Lungu case: Why was former president Lungu’s immunity not lifted?
By Sishuwa Sishuwa
On 10 February 2026, the Lusaka High Court ordered the forfeiture of properties worth K31 million belonging to former president Edgar Lungu’s son, Dalitso. According to court records, Dalitso, who earned a total income of K137, 803 before Lungu became president in 2015, explained that the wealth was given to him by his father. The order was issued following an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions who had sought the forfeiture of about 71 vehicles and 21 properties, which included a filling station, to the state.
There are several lessons that emerge from this case. I will highlight only four.
The first is the need for governments to fight corruption in real time. A key reason why we are only now uncovering the corruption of the Edgar Lungu era is that successive governments tend to focus on fighting corruption of the past while ignoring or paying lip service to the rampant corruption that is happening under their own watch. As a result of this practice, Zambians will only get to know the grand corruption that may be taking place under President Hakainde Hichilema only after the UPND is out of office. There is need to identify and address the factors, both structural and otherwise, that prevent anti-corruption bodies from fighting corruption in real time.
In addition to creating supportive or empowering legislation and appointing independent professionals with a clear track record of fighting corruption to the board and management positions of the Anti-Corruption Commission, a successful anti-corruption campaign requires having a president who shows a clear or demonstrable will to fight past and especially present corruption. Such political will can be expressed in several ways: by strengthening anti‑corruption laws, by acting decisively against wrongdoing among officials and associates, including those closest to power, and by leading through personal example.
Lungu fell short on all three fronts, and Hichilema has, regrettably, mirrored his predecessor with equal distinction. A brief review of his four and a half years in office reveals a striking failure across each dimension.
He has introduced no meaningful reforms to the Anti‑Corruption Act, nor has he sought to align it with Article 216 of the Constitution, which sets out the guiding principles for commissions. Hichilema has likewise shown an incriminating reluctance to dismiss ministers and other senior government officials accused of involvement in corruption.
Few Zambians have forgotten how the president went out his way to protect high-level officials accused of corruption in the Ministry of Health, to shield his associates who were implicated in the infamous airport gold scandal, or how he has overly protected Solicitor General Marshal Muchende from possible prosecution for alleged corruption.
As the current US Ambassador to Zambia, Michael Gonzales, argued in November 2023, “There must be consequences for individuals who abuse their public positions for personal gain. They must lose their jobs, their assets, and/or their freedom. The costs of corruption must exceed the financial gain if we are going to stem corrupt practices.” Gonzales—whose prior diplomatic postings show a traceable record of calling governments to account for violating their own laws or advancing personal interests at the expense of their citizens—continued:
“Investigating and arresting former officials is appropriate and expected when there is convincing evidence. And over the past decade during which corruption was effectively industrialized by senior officials in government, there is a deep, deep pool of former officials to be held accountable.
Because, let’s be honest, when you go into public office having a modest house in a compound, and you leave office with $400,000 in cash laying around the house that you need to pass it to your niece for safe keeping, it calls into question where that money came from, because it wasn’t just your government salary!
And if it came from corrupt practices or abuse of office, there must be accountability.” In addition to drawing attention to the Lungu-era corruption and the importance of holding former officials to account, Gonzales also emphasised the need for Hichilema to decisively deal with the corruption that is happening under his administration:
“But it’s important there be comparable attention and investigations to ensure accountable government among current administration officials and political leaders as well. We are still waiting to see convictions of current administration officials for corruption.
When the PS repeatedly cancels and re-issues the high-value procurement, selecting a limited cohort of allowed bidders, it’s a problem. When a minister’s son or nephew routinely pressures companies in his father’s or uncle’s sector to give them money to secure licenses or concessions, it’s a problem.
Let us demonstrate that indeed there are no sacred cows and that no one is above the law. But we all know that despite the lovely words, the Zambian people are only going to believe it when accountability is held, when corrupt officials lose their jobs, their assets, and their eedom.”
The second lesson is that any politically exposed person whose wealth exceeds their known means should be required to account for it. That principle is simply fair. By the same measure, if credible evidence were to emerge tomorrow suggesting that members of President Hichilema’s family possessed assets far beyond their legitimate and verifiable income, it would be reasonable to expect them to explain the source of that wealth.
Those family members might include Maurice Hichilema, the President’s brother and current Director of Human Resources at Cabinet Office; Constance Hichilema, his sister and now Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police responsible for the Paramilitary Unit; and Habwela Hichilema, his son, who was controversially appointed to a position in the Zambia National Service, where we are told he serves without pay.
Other family members who may be questioned in future are Albert Halwampa, the president’s brother in law who is ZDA Director General; Kennedy Shepande, the president’s brother in law who is Zambia’s High Commissioner to Canada; Machacha Shepande, the president’s brother in law who is General Secretary of the Football Association of Zambia; Marshal Muchende, the president’s nephew who is Solicitor General; and several others too numerous to mention who populate public positions.
Requesting that these or other individuals associated with the president clarify the sources of any wealth beyond their established income does not imply guilt. It ensures they are afforded the chance to be heard and to demonstrate that their assets were obtained lawfully.
The third lesson is the importance of declaring and publishing assets when one is a public officer. If Lungu had published the assets and liabilities that he declared to the Electoral Commission of Zambia in 2021, it may have been easy for the public to believe the possibility
https://dailyrevelationzambia.com/the-dalitso-lungu-case-why-was-former-president-lungus-immunity-not-lifted/
Who are you asking shushua?
Most of these relations to the president held civil service positions before HH became president. As Zambian citizens qualified academically to hold those positions, I do not see how the factor into the lifting of a former president’s immunity.
And I do not think HH’s relatives holding certain job positions are the reason for Lungu’s immunity NOT to be lifted. The state was gathering evidence and cases to support the lifting of Lungu’s immunity. The seizure of assets from practically all of Lungu’s nuclear family was one of the steps in that direction.
Lifting of a former president’s immunity is the job of law enforcement, not the privilege of his or her successor.
The same people like you would have been up in arms on HH shaming him and calling him all sorts of names. But HH is a smart leader.
Prior to the 2021 elections, public disclosure of a presidential candidate’s assets and liabilities was mandatory. However, after the 2016 presidential elections, Mr. Lungu took it upon himself to shroud this information in secrecy by making it privileged to the ECZ only. Reason? He found himself in the awkward position of having to explain his meteoric jump from an assets portfolio of USD2.5 million in the 2015 presidential by election to USD23 milllion in the 2016 presidential elections, a mere 18 months downstream. His successor, HH, has followed in his footsteps, unfortunately, by refusing to make public what he disclosed to the ECZ. This will haunt him in future.
As citizens, we need to know the value of assets declared to ECZ in 2021 by BOTH Mr. Lungu and Mr. Hichilema. We are not supposed to be pleading for this information. But I also wonder, we have the Freedom of Information law, why don’t our legal minds make use of this piece of legislation to prise this critical public interest information out of ECZ? Are lawyers on either side of the aisle scared of opening a can of worms?