Court strips Dalitso Lungu of over 70 vehicles and properties

The Economic and Financial Crimes Court, sitting as a division of the High Court, has ordered the forfeiture to the State of a substantial portfolio of vehicles and properties belonging to Dalitso Lungu, following a determination that the assets could not be sufficiently linked to lawful sources of income.

The forfeiture order was granted after an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who sought the seizure of more than 70 motor vehicles alongside several properties, including residential, commercial, and service-related holdings. Among the properties listed in the proceedings is a filling station. The court granted the application, resulting in the transfer of ownership and control of the assets to the State.

In the proceedings, the State argued that the scale, quantity, and value of the assets were disproportionate to the known and verifiable income streams attributed to Dalitso Lungu. The application was brought under laws that allow the State to seek forfeiture of property deemed to be unexplained, where a person is unable to reasonably account for how such assets were acquired through lawful earnings.

The court examined financial records, asset acquisition timelines, and explanations advanced in response to the State’s claims. Submissions addressed income declarations, business interests, and alleged sources of funding used to acquire the properties and vehicles. The State maintained that the explanations provided did not adequately reconcile the volume of assets with legitimate income.

The defence, in response, placed before the court explanations pointing to lawful business activity and income as the basis for acquisition of the assets. It was argued that ownership alone was not evidence of illegality and that the assets were accumulated over time through legitimate means. These explanations were assessed against the documentary and financial material presented during the proceedings.

After considering the evidence and submissions, the court found that the State had met the legal threshold required for forfeiture. In its ruling, the court concluded that the explanations offered were insufficient to displace the presumption established under the forfeiture framework governing unexplained property. The judges accordingly granted the forfeiture order in respect of the listed vehicles and properties.

The ruling results in the immediate vesting of the assets in the State, subject to administration under established legal procedures. Responsibility now shifts to the relevant authorities to manage, preserve, and ultimately dispose of the forfeited assets in accordance with the law.

The decision represents one of the more significant asset recovery outcomes in recent months, both in numerical scope and in estimated value. It underscores the State’s continued use of civil forfeiture mechanisms as a tool for recovering assets deemed to fall outside lawful accumulation, without the requirement that each asset be tied to a specific criminal conviction.

Under the forfeiture regime, proceedings focus on the property itself rather than criminal liability, placing the burden on the respondent to provide satisfactory explanations for asset acquisition once the State establishes a prima facie case. The court’s ruling reflects the application of this framework.

With the order now in effect, the forfeited vehicles and properties are expected to be processed through statutory asset management systems. Any subsequent challenges or appeals would follow established legal channels.