The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Gilbert Phiri has challenged a Court of Appeal single-judge ruling granting the former First Lady, Esther Lungu, leave to appeal a decision taken by the Economic and Financial Crimes Court’s (EFCC) during the matter concerning Mrs. Lungu’s then suspected tainted property.
The 15 flats in question have since been forfeited to the state.
The National Prosecution Authority (NPA) explained in a statement that the DPP was challenging a ruling by a single judge of the Court of Appeal regarding an interim matter that emerged after the final judgment in a case where 15 flats belonging to the former First Lady were forfeited to the state.
This legal move emphasizes the importance of judicial jurisdiction, particularly concerning interlocutory appeals following a final ruling.
The NPA stated that the matter stemmed from the DPP’s summoning of two bankers to present evidence in Mrs. Lungu’s trial. Their records were cross-examined by Mrs. Lungu.
“A key procedural dispute arose when Mrs. Lungu, without seeking the court’s permission, summoned three of the DPP’s witnesses for cross-examination. The EFCC rejected this, citing procedural lapses. In response, Mrs. Lungu applied for leave to appeal this decision. However, the EFCC denied her application, prompting her to seek relief from a single judge of the Court of Appeal and request a stay of the EFCC proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the stay, citing unnecessary delays that hinder the prompt resolution of cases.”
Despite the EFCC delivering its final judgment on September 27, ordering the forfeiture of Mrs. Lungu’s flats to the state, she pursued further legal challenges and on October 4, a single judge of the Court of Appeal granted her leave to appeal the Court’s decision regarding the summoning of witnesses, even though the main case had already been concluded.
The DPP now argues that since the EFCC issued its final judgment, the jurisdiction of a single judge of the Court of Appeal over interim matters ceased.
Phiri has cited case law precedence which established that once a final ruling is issued, only the full bench—not a single judge—can review it.
“Allowing otherwise would undermine judicial hierarchy and the principle of finality. The DPP asserts that the same reasoning should apply in the current matter, where the single judge’s ruling may conflict with the established principle,” said the NPA.
According to the NPA, this presents a unique opportunity for the Courts to clarify the jurisdiction of Appellate courts in interim matters, which the DPP argues is crucial in preventing endless delays in the legal process and maintaining the judiciary’s integrity.
