Businessman Opposes State Forfeiture of Lusambo-Linked Property

Businessman Opposes State Forfeiture of Lusambo-Linked Property
A businessman, Mukuka Munkonge, has opposed the State’s application to forfeit a property in Chamba Valley that authorities have linked to jailed former Lusaka Province Minister Bowman Lusambo. He told the court that the land and developments in question belong to him, not Lusambo. The ongoing legal proceedings highlight the implications of State Forfeiture on private property rights. Munkonge’s case represents a significant challenge against the authority’s attempt to seize property without adequate evidence. The tension between state power and individual rights is brought to the forefront, raising critical questions about the balance of justice and the preservation of personal property.

This was revealed during a forfeiture hearing held before Lusaka Chief Resident Magistrate Davies Chibwili. Munkonge’s lawyer, Zyola Kakunka, testified that the businessman entered into a lease agreement for the property in 2018, which expired in 2022. He argued that the six incomplete blocks of flats at the center of the dispute are neither owned nor controlled by Lusambo, contrary to the State’s claim. The case raises significant concerns regarding the fairness of the State Forfeiture process, especially in light of how such actions can affect innocent parties who hold legitimate interests in properties that may be wrongfully associated with unlawful activities.

Munkonge said he had not committed any offense that would justify seizure of the property, urging the court to dismiss the forfeiture application. “Allowing the application by the State to forfeit the property will amount to unjust actions,” he argued. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future State Forfeiture cases. Should the court rule in favor of Munkonge, it may embolden others in similar situations to fight against unjust forfeitures, fostering a more robust defense of property rights across the nation.

Lusambo, who was jailed for three years with hard labor on two counts of possession of property reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime, has also opposed the forfeiture. His legal team, led by Jonas Zimba, submitted that the conviction is under appeal and therefore not final. They argued that enforcing forfeiture at this stage would render the appeal academic and cause irreparable prejudice. This situation highlights the complexity of legal battles involving State Forfeiture where individuals face not only the loss of property but also the ramifications of criminal convictions that may not yet be resolved.

The defense further argued that the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act limits confiscation to the value of benefits derived from offending conduct. They said this does not allow for wholesale seizure of property that may include legitimate or third-party interests. This legal principle is crucial in maintaining justice, as it protects individuals who may be inadvertently swept up in State Forfeiture actions due to associations with others who may be involved in criminal activities.

State prosecutor Chawezi Nalwenga maintained that the civil forfeiture proceedings should proceed independently of the criminal appeal. Nalwenga argued that property established as tainted may be subject to forfeiture, even if the criminal appeal has not been concluded. This stance reiterates the ongoing debate about the separation of civil and criminal law, particularly in cases involving State Forfeiture where the burden of proof and the standard of evidence may differ significantly.

The court has not yet delivered a ruling on the application. The outcome will determine whether the Chamba Valley property remains under the businessman’s control pending Lusambo’s appeal, or if it will be forfeited to the State under existing anti-corruption legislation.