The Economic and Financial Crimes Court has ordered the forfeiture of Faith Musonda’s numerous properties for having proceeded from crime.
The ruling follows an application by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) to seize several assets linked to Musonda, who was among the first people arraigned for graft-related offenses when the UPND administration took office.
The forfeited assets include a proportional sum of US$144,500 paid towards the purchase of a subdivision of a lot of land in Lusaka, another in Chisamba, and also in Ibex Hill of Lusaka, measuring 0.60 hectares.
The court also ordered the forfeiture of Government Bonds worth K3,140,000, Treasury Bills valued at K1,100,000, and the interest accrued thereon.
Additional assets included Madison Finance Limited Fixed Term Deposits totaling K1,219,110.02, assorted jewelry valued at between $3,450 and $4,300, as well as agricultural equipment, particularly a TAFE tractor and related farming implements.
In her defense, Musonda claimed that the properties were acquired through legitimate means, including income from contracts as a communications expert, consultancy services, and proceeds from the sale of one of her properties. However, the court found that she failed to provide adequate evidence to support these claims.
The judgment, delivered by Judges Susan Wanjelani, Vincent Siloka, and Ian Mabbolobbolo, highlighted several deficiencies in Musonda’s submissions. The court noted that Musonda had not produced any contracts, lease agreements, or proof of payments for her consultancy work.
Furthermore, she did not provide details of the property she claimed to have sold to finance the purchase of Government Bonds and Treasury Bills.
Bank transactions revealed significant cash deposits into her accounts, which were later withdrawn to purchase the investments, but there was no documentation to trace the source of the funds.
The acquisition of her Chisamba farm also raised questions. While Musonda claimed it was purchased through a mortgage, the court observed that payments for the property were made before the mortgage was registered. Additionally, the Lands Printout indicated irregularities in the registration process.
The court stated that once the ACC established reasonable suspicion that the properties were proceeds of crime, the burden of proof shifted to Musonda to demonstrate the legitimacy of her assets.
However, the judges found her explanations unsubstantiated. They referred to a precedent from a Kenyan case, which underscored the need for proper documentation such as books of accounts, payment receipts, and contracts to validate claims of legitimate ownership.
In its conclusion, the court ruled that the ACC had successfully demonstrated that the properties were proceeds of crime. The judges ordered that all listed properties be forfeited to the State, to be used as deemed appropriate within the confines of the law.
