Former Lusaka Province Minister Bowman Lusambo has opposed an application by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) seeking a court order to forfeit his properties, including his luxurious house in Chamba Valley.
Following Lusambo’s conviction and sentencing by the Economic and Financial Crimes Court in November last year, the ACC filed a motion before the High Court to seize his Chamba Valley residence, six incomplete flats in the same area, and four houses in Silverest Gardens.
The commission has cited Lusambo, his wife Nancy Manase, in whose name the properties are registered, and two interested parties: Mukuka Munkonge and ZDA-Henan Guoji Development Company Limited, in the forfeiture case.
According to an affidavit in support of the originating notice of motion sworn by ACC investigations officer Mulenga Mulenga, Lusambo engaged two Zambians to construct a driveway at his residence in Chamba Valley at a price of US$28,250 and K50,000.
In his affidavit opposing the application, Lusambo, who is in remand at Mwembeshi Maximum Prison, argues through his lawyers that the ACC has not established that the properties in question were acquired through criminal activity.
He contends that asset forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature and require proof of unlawful acquisition based on the balance of probabilities.
Citing legal precedents, Lusambo’s legal team references the case of Asset Recovery Agency v. Pamela Aboo in Kenya, which stated that forfeiture proceedings must be grounded on substantive evidence rather than mere suspicion or lack of identified lawful income.
Lusambo also refers to the Namibian case Teckla Nandjila Lameck v. President of Namibia, which clarified that asset forfeiture is a civil remedy aimed at confiscating proceeds of crime and should not be used as a punitive measure without concrete proof linking the assets to criminal activity.
Lusambo argues that the ACC has not demonstrated any direct link between the properties and illicit funds.
He has submitted documents showing his sources of income, including earnings from employment, business ventures, consultancy services, and allowances received from political engagements.
He states that between 2007 and 2009, he was employed as a sales professional at G-TV, earning commissions. Following the company’s closure, he transitioned into business, generating further income.
Lusambo also highlights his tenure as National Youth Chairperson for Mobilization under the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD), during which he received allowances that contributed to his financial standing and enabled him to acquire the disputed properties.
According to Lusambo, his financial capacity was further bolstered by consultancy work with Mimbula Mining Consortium Limited between 2014 and 2015, for which he received $350,000. These funds, he says, were used to construct his residential house through a contract with Kloppers Construction and Grain Storage Solutions Limited.
He challenges the ACC’s valuation of his property, arguing that the market value does not reflect the actual construction cost.
He has submitted independent valuation reports to counter the ACC’s assessment, asserting that their report is exaggerated.
Lusambo states that his wife, Nancy, used some of their legitimate earnings to invest in properties in Silverest Gardens.
He maintains that not all of these properties have been fully paid for and remain registered under the original owner’s name.
He also refutes allegations concerning a property purchased from Washington Mwenya Zimba, stating that its dimensions have been misrepresented by the ACC.
He insists that the land was acquired lawfully and that the applicant’s claims regarding its size and valuation are inaccurate.
Regarding a separate property in F/609/E/50, Lusambo clarifies that he never owned it and had only leased it for a period.
He asserts that the property belongs to Geoffrey Mukuka Munkonge and dismisses the ACC’s claim of ownership as erroneous.
Lusambo argues that the ACC’s case is based on assumptions and lacks substantive evidence.
He insists that his sources of income were legitimate and verifiable and that the commission has failed to demonstrate any criminal conduct warranting forfeiture of his assets.
Lusambo has urged the court to dismiss the application, stating that justice should be based on proven facts rather than suspicion.
He maintains that his assets were lawfully acquired through diligence and legitimate economic activities.
Lusambo has appealed against his conviction in the High Court.
