Grabbing GBM’s Assets: A Tangled Web of Conviction and Controversy

Grabbing GBM’s Assets: A Tangled Web of Conviction and Controversy

On October 9, 2024, Geoffrey Bwalya Mwamba (GBM), a former Minister of Defence and a prominent political figure, was sentenced to five years imprisonment with hard labor by the Lusaka Magistrate’s Court. Magistrate Sanford Ngobola, presiding as an Economic and Financial Crimes Court, found GBM guilty on 13 counts, including eight for conflict of interest, four for possession of property suspected to be proceeds of crime, and one for money laundering. Additionally, GBM was fined K50,000 for the money laundering charge and ordered to repay a total of $899,970 (K24.9 million) and K20 million to the State, proceeds from business transactions linked to his time as Minister.

The court alleged that while serving as Cabinet Minister, GBM used his position to facilitate business between the Ministry of Defence, which he supervised, and his companies and relatives. It was argued that GBM flouted procurement procedures and failed to declare his interest in the transactions. Despite presenting a document purportedly submitted to the Permanent Secretary as proof of declaration, the court contested and dismissed this evidence.

The goods in question, however, were undisputedly delivered in full. “GBM didn’t supply air, nor did he steal,” his defense asserted. Yet, the proceeds of these transactions, deemed irregular, were classified as proceeds of crime, forming the basis for his conviction. This has fueled a contentious debate about whether the judgment was a fair application of the law or a politically motivated decision aimed at targeting a high-profile opponent.

In light of his conviction, GBM has appealed both the sentence and the judgment, maintaining his innocence and dismissing the charges as unfounded. Despite this, the courts have denied him bail pending appeal, a decision that mirrors a pattern seen in similar high-profile cases.

The move to seize GBM’s assets, while his appeal is still underway, has raised legal and ethical concerns. Critics argue that it is premature to forfeit assets linked to a contested judgment, particularly one with substantial prospects of being overturned on appeal. GBM’s health, as a serious cardiac patient, adds another layer of urgency and complexity to his fight against the charges under these circumstances.

The case has reignited discussions about the misuse of judicial systems to pursue political ends. Proponents of GBM’s innocence argue that the current wave of prosecutions is deeply rooted in lawfare the strategic use of legal systems to suppress and discredit political adversaries. This, they claim, undermines the very foundations of justice and sets a dangerous precedent for the nation.

While Zambia’s leadership often laments public sympathy for individuals convicted of corruption, this sentiment is not unfounded. Observers note that public trust in the fight against corruption diminishes when legal processes appear tainted by political motivations. “You lose the corruption fight because you abandon the due process of the law and resort to prosecution as a punitive tool,” critics warn.

The legacy being created by such approaches to governance is cause for concern. If perceived injustices persist, they may haunt the very systems and leaders perpetuating them, leaving Zambia’s fight against corruption mired in doubt. As this case unfolds, it serves as a stark reminder of the need for fairness, transparency, and due process in the pursuit of justice.