Dalitso Lungu, son of former President Edgar Lungu, has filed an appeal seeking to recover 79 motor vehicles and 25 properties forfeited to the State by the Economic and Financial Crimes Court (EFCC).
Through his lawyers, Messrs Malisa and Partners, Dalitso and his company, Saloid Traders Limited, have lodged a Notice of Intention to Appeal together with a Memorandum of Appeal challenging the February 9, 2026 judgment of the EFCC.
In that ruling, the lower court ordered the forfeiture of a fleet of vehicles valued at more than K24 million and multiple pieces of land across the country. The court found that the assets were tainted and reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime under the Non-Conviction Based Forfeiture framework.
The State, acting through the Director of Public Prosecutions under the National Prosecution Authority, had applied for forfeiture on grounds that investigations revealed unexplained wealth allegedly running into tens of millions of kwacha. The prosecution argued that the assets held by Dalitso and Saloid Traders Limited far exceeded their declared income.
Investigations cited by the court reportedly included inquiries at the Zambia Revenue Authority and other institutions. The EFCC concluded that neither Dalitso nor his company had the financial capacity to acquire the vehicles and properties in the manner and at the rate they did.
The seized assets include 69 vehicles valued at over K24 million and 25 pieces of land located in Chongwe, Chibombo, Chisamba, Solwezi, Ndola, Chilanga, Petauke and Nakonde.
In his appeal, Dalitso argues that the High Court judges erred in law and in fact by concluding that the properties were proceeds of crime without identifying any specific serious offence allegedly committed. He contends that the court wrongly shifted the burden of proof onto him after the State established what it termed “reasonable grounds to suspect” that the properties were tainted.
He submits that this approach contravened Sections 31 and 34 of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act and effectively reversed the statutory burden of proof.
Dalitso further argues that the court misdirected itself by basing the Non-Conviction Based Forfeiture Order on Section 71 of the Act instead of limiting itself to Sections 29 and 31. He cites the case of Sydney Mwansa v The Director of Public Prosecutions, decided on June 11, 2024, as binding authority on the interpretation of non-conviction based forfeiture provisions.
Among other grounds, he claims the court rejected his unchallenged affidavit evidence that his late father financed the purchase of some of the properties. At the same time, he argues, the court accepted what he describes as hearsay evidence from the State.
He also disputes the valuation of the motor vehicles at over K23 million, arguing that the figure was not supported by independent or credible valuation evidence.
The appeal further challenges the order condemning him in costs.
In its February 9 judgment, the EFCC questioned claims that some properties were financed through business profits and commercial farming. The court noted that Dalitso allegedly failed to provide details of crops grown, livestock reared or buyers of farm produce to substantiate the farming income claims.
The appeal now places the matter before the appellate court, where judges will review whether the EFCC correctly applied the law and properly assessed the evidence before issuing the forfeiture order.
At stake is not only the fleet of vehicles and the 25 properties, but also the interpretation of the Non-Conviction Based Forfeiture regime. The appellate court will determine whether the evidentiary threshold was met and whether statutory provisions were correctly applied.
The case is now pending determination before the higher court.
How the heck did he aquire all that?
Did you read or you’re just lazy? It says his late father financed the purchase of some of the properties.
@HH Nafilwa: And from where did his late father obtain that kind of wealth? What product is produced by a politician which has such fast returns?
How many vehicles can one drive at a time?
That was not even the usual motive, “Tulyemo”. It was pure thieft and disrespect of all the Zambian citizens especially taxpayers.
What goes around comes around.
Lungu groomed thieves and left them tools to be stubborn without shame. People who steal from the public are shamelessly abusing the system, even the judges who are sitting on this appeal are also victims of theft as citizens of Zambia. These people stole from the Zambian people and let the heat be turned up on these thugs
The lawyers in this case will then one day want to run for plot 1
Thieves are launching appeals in the hope that there will be a new government in a few months by the time the appeal is heard and the ruling will be in their favour.
Where did his father get the money? If that cannot be shown then the principle is the same, guilt can’t be delegated
There’s no way this vast wealth is legit.
The PF crew were openly stealing kwati bucende bwa mu misebo.
Just like the theft during privatisation
Appeal, its within your rights, and put ear bags in your ears because remember the guys who have failed to work would want to distract
And they don’t learn……….
Even the next one will come and steal……….
Let’s just put it into law that the president and his cabinet will be investigated after they leave office for unaccountable wealth………
We are here
FWD2041
Dalitso wilamona kwati tuli batulo ifwe. Where would you get the money to have 79 cars? And 25 properties? In three-four years! What business has such kamimbya speed of growth?
If not from illegal deals. You Zedian politicians and your fraternity think we can be duped? We all know that If you want to get rich quick go into politics- and get into govt
Kamimbya speed of growth kikikikiki! So fast only a politician can keep count
lozi did you vote for hh hakainde hichilema
lozi did you vote for hh hakinde hachilema
caitlin silwimba
Even if Dalitso acquired such wealth “legally” it shows serious leaks in Zambia’s laws. Ethical standards are not enforced bcoz influence peddling aka using govt position to steer GRZ contracts to family and friends is abuse of office.
Whatever the case the forfeiture of said cars to the state should still stand.