WHEN THE CHURCH RECEIVES A GIFT: PAPER TRAIL, WILFUL BLINDNESS AND PHILANTHROPY
By Wisdom Chanda
Academic Opinion — Not a Commentary on Any Matter Before Any Court
Abstract:
This article asks a simple but urgent question for this generation: When a pastor receives an expensive gift — a car, land, or money — with all documents in order, is he supposed to become a detective and investigate the giver?
1. Introduction
In every society, clergy have always been recipients of generosity. People give to the church out of faith, respect, and gratitude. That is as old as the church itself.
The existential question for our generation is this: Has the law now changed to say that the one who receives — the donee — must investigate the one who gives, even when the papers are clean?
2. What The Law Says About a Gift
Under Zambian law, a gift is valid if three things exist:
– Animus donandi — meaning the intention to give. The giver genuinely wants to give.
– Delivery — the item is actually handed over or legally transferred.
– Acceptance — the receiver accepts it
Once that gift is registered by the State — at RTSA for a vehicle with a white book, at Ministry of Lands for property with a title, or through a formal Deed of Gift for money — the State itself has stamped it as prima facie legitimate. Prima facie simply means on the face of it, it looks lawful.
We also have two key laws: the Anti-Money Laundering Act No. 14 of 2020 and the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act No. 19 of 2010. These laws put a duty to ask hard questions and report suspicious transactions on accountable institutions — banks, lawyers, estate agents, car dealers. They do not put that duty on a private citizen, and certainly not on a pastor receiving a blessing from his congregant.
3. Wilful Blindness vs. Innocent Receiving
In law, there is a concept called wilful blindness. It means you suspected something was wrong but deliberately closed your eyes so you could later say “I didn’t know.” That is punishable.
This is different from innocent receiving, where you genuinely did not know and had no reason to suspect.
Courts, both in Zambia and in cases like R v Da Silva in England, have said that for you to be guilty of handling property suspected to be proceeds of crime, you must have mens rea — a guilty mind. That means you either knew, or you had reasonable grounds to suspect it was tainted.
If a pastor receives a vehicle from a known church member, a known businessman, or a known philanthropist — for example, the well-documented Church Empowerment Programmes by Hon. James Ndambo through the James Ndambo Foundation, which publicly gifted vehicles to clergy across the country — he cannot be called wilfully blind just for saying “thank you and God bless you.”
Thousands of clergy receive similar benevolence annually. The law has never required a pastor to conduct KYC — Know Your Customer — on his flock before receiving a blessing. KYC is the banking duty to demand bank statements, source of income, tax clearance before transacting. That duty is for banks, not for the pulpit.
4. So When Does a Pastor Have a Duty to Ask?
Academic consensus is clear. A duty to inquire only arises where:
a) The gift is so huge and so disproportionate that no normal relationship explains it;
b) The giver is a total stranger and the circumstances of giving are suspicious;
c) There are reasonable, objective grounds to suspect illegality.
If none of those exist, the paper trail — the white book, the title deed, the bank transfer — remains prima facie proof of bona fides, meaning good faith and genuineness.
5. Conclusion
If we impose a blanket duty on every pastor to investigate every gift, we will kill philanthropy and violate freedom of religion under Article 19 of the Constitution. We will turn every pulpit into an investigative wing of the State.
The law remains balanced: A donee must not be wilfully blind, but he is also not a law enforcement officer. The Church receives in faith; the State verifies through its own registries.
Disclaimer: This article is written purely for academic analysis and does not refer to, nor comment upon, any matter currently before the courts.
There is only one problem. The gentleman who allegedly “donated” the vehicle to the Archbishop, a Mr. Mulopa Kaunda, a ZRA employee has flatly refused that he donated the vehicle to the Archbishop, neither has he met the Archbishop.
Unfortunately, no one is mentioning anything about the anguish this gentleman has had to endure with all the questioning from the LEAs and the fact that it involves a high ranking clergy in the Catholic Church.
The bottomline is, be careful who you receive a gift from.
Animus domandi,did the giver accept that he is the one who gave?
What you are not telling us is WHO gifted this Bishop? ZRA didnt just dream up the Bishop’s name. Neither did Mr. Kaunda
Secondly, while the points you suggest maybe right. Suspicion should have arisen when the Bishop recieved the gift in his personal stead.
No one has questioned another silently alluded motor vehicle donated to the Church.
As you state, what raises the dust. Is why would “whoever” donate a car, and not a cheap “autorec”. But a car whose value is high. A fact you allude to in 4a and 4c.
Is ZRA in the business of dishing out cars? They, as a public institution are subject to a particular procedure when disposing assets of the institution.
The naivety of the Bishop further brings to light a number complaints made about his conduct as a man of the cloth. Articles prior to this incident were written about the man and his conduct as regards finances and members of the opposite gender. Flip the pages back. The proof is in there.
This is not an academic article. Its an attempt to vilify the man. So lets not hide behind “lofty words”. Lets call a spade a spade. Why would A clergy recieve a gift in his personal name? That in itself is a red flag.
We are taught that the clergy give their lives and choose celibate lives in devotion to God. So why have a car? What are they said to own? Recent we read of the meekness in the coffin a Bishop was buried in. The kind of wood used.
Why then would this Bishop choose to live a life opposite of that choosen and pledge to. The moral fortitude of the Bishop was low. And this is what has ended him up in the sadly embarassing situation. Theft is the kind of moral depravity that one ends up in when is morally corrupt or bankrupt. Banda has embarassed the Church in his lack of upright steadfastenness.The man should take a leaf from Bishop Milingo who when he failed to live up to the laws of the church, he stepped aside.