“Esther Lungu’s K66 Million Flats Corruption Scandal or Political Vendetta?”
The Economic and Financial Crimes Court (EFCC) has denied a request by former First Lady Esther Lungu to stay the forfeiture of her 15 double-storey flats, valued at K66 million, to the state. The court’s decision marks another chapter in the legal battle over the properties declared as “tainted” in a landmark judgment.
Mrs. Lungu had sought to delay the execution of the September 27, 2024, ruling, arguing that the forfeiture would render her appeal in the Court of Appeal meaningless. Her legal team maintained that without a stay, the appeal would be academic, stripping her of the chance to reclaim the properties if the judgment were overturned.
However, the EFCC’s three-member bench—Justices Pixie Yangailo, Ian Mabbolobbolo, and Vincent Siloka—found her application unconvincing. The court emphasized that Mrs. Lungu failed to demonstrate “special circumstances” or risks of irreparable loss that would justify halting the forfeiture process. They highlighted that stays of execution are not granted lightly and are subject to strict conditions.
“A successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of their judgment,” the court stated, adding that the threshold for granting a stay requires compelling evidence of harm that cannot be compensated by monetary or other legal remedies. The judges reviewed the merits of Mrs. Lungu’s grounds of appeal and concluded that they lacked sufficient prospects of success.
The disputed properties—15 double-storey flats located in Lusaka—were declared “tainted” by the EFCC in its initial judgment. According to the state, the flats were acquired using proceeds of crime, making them eligible for forfeiture under Zambia’s anti-corruption and financial crimes laws. The court agreed with the state’s submission, ordering the properties to be handed over to the government.
This ruling has sparked widespread public interest, with some seeing it as a bold step in Zambia’s fight against corruption, while others question whether due process was followed. Mrs. Lungu’s defense has consistently denied the allegations, arguing that the properties were lawfully acquired through legitimate means.
The EFCC’s decision sets a significant precedent in the enforcement of anti-corruption laws in Zambia. By dismissing the stay application, the court has signaled its commitment to ensuring that judgments are executed promptly, barring exceptional circumstances. Legal analysts note that this approach could bolster confidence in Zambia’s judicial system, particularly in cases involving high-profile individuals.
However, critics have raised concerns about the potential misuse of the “tainted property” designation, arguing that it places an undue burden on defendants to prove their innocence rather than requiring the state to substantiate its claims. The ongoing appeal in the Court of Appeal is likely to address these concerns, potentially shaping future legal interpretations of Zambia’s anti-corruption laws.
Esther Lungu, wife of former President Edgar Lungu, enjoyed significant influence during her husband’s tenure as Zambia’s head of state. As First Lady, she was lauded for her philanthropic efforts, but her post-presidency years have been marred by allegations of corruption and financial impropriety.
The contested flats have become a focal point in these allegations, with state prosecutors alleging that they were funded through illicit channels. Forfeiture proceedings against high-profile figures like Mrs. Lungu have intensified under President Hakainde Hichilema’s administration, which has made the fight against corruption a cornerstone of its governance agenda.
While the EFCC’s decision represents a setback for Mrs. Lungu, her legal team has vowed to continue the fight in the Court of Appeal. “We believe we have a strong case and will pursue justice at the appellate level,” a representative stated. The appeal is expected to delve into both procedural and substantive aspects of the case, with potential implications for Zambia’s broader anti-corruption framework.
As the legal battle unfolds, the story underscores the complexities of balancing anti-corruption efforts with the protection of individual rights.
LT
Lets stop making noise. Lets Edgar explain where he got the money to build the flats.
Its simple. When we add just the property his immediate family has failed to explain where the money came from. The all suggest to have been gifted by their father. His total income as President, does not come anywhere near the total value of the assets he gifted his family. .
Now if we did a search of what he owns and has gifted extended family membrrs loke brotyer cousins etc. What will we find? Until an explaination is made to the court, Mrs Lungu’s notion that because she is the wife of a former President and doesnt owe us an explaination is suggesting that she and her family are above the law. Arrogance doesnt pay, nor is the narrative that this is political. For too long people have wanted to think everyone but “some of us” is subject to the law and the rot needs to stop somewhere
From the beginning it reeked of a corruption scandal. Just how can Esther obtain such a large amount of forex so quickly was the question. Just like how did HH get so much in foreign exchange after presiding over the fishy sales of state property? Esther could have defended herself saying she used her social status to get legally valid favours from contractors but well the trial hasnt taken place yet. However, all politicians are like this: in it for the money. And I mean all.
No matter what she says……..
There is no tax paid , no recites , no loan background……..
Contractors simply built them and gave them to her……..
That is what the PF thives forgot, tax and loan recites………
I still belive the presidential retairment package was enough for the lungus.
FWD2031
The arrogance of thieves is shocking…
She is a common thief,just like her husband & children.