By 
With a confident stride and dressed in a sharp suit more suited to a boardroom than a courtroom, Francis Muchemwa—once known as “Commander 2” during the Patriotic Front era—walked into court on Monday, clinging to the hope that his conviction would be overturned.
Now appearing from a prison cell rather than his former powerful post at the Intercity Bus Terminus, Muchemwa stood before the High Court seeking freedom—but left with his sentence intact.
A three-judge panel comprising Justices Ian Mabbolobbolo, Pixie Yangailo, and Anna Malata-Ononuju upheld the July 2024 ruling that convicted Muchemwa for possession of property and vehicles suspected to be proceeds of crime valued at K11 million.
Read more: High Court sets judgement date in appeal case of convicted former PF strongman, Muchemwa
He will continue serving a three-year prison sentence.
The court also upheld findings that Muchemwa, despite being employed full-time at ZESCO, frequently absented himself from work, instead dedicating his time to political activities.
In addition to the charge of possessing unexplained wealth, the lower court found that Muchemwa fraudulently received K141,000 in travel allowances for trips he never undertook.
The High Court maintained the order for him to repay the K141,000, concluding that the lower court was correct in finding he had obtained the funds under false pretences.
The judges ruled that Muchemwa failed to produce any documentation to explain the origin of his assets, and that the prosecution had successfully met the burden of proof required under the law.
In his appeal, Muchemwa argued that he was subjected to an unfair trial and that the prosecution had not discharged its burden to the legally required standard.
His lawyers contended that the trial magistrate placed undue emphasis on Muchemwa’s failure to produce documentation, rather than critically examining the state’s evidence.
Citing precedents such as People v. Austin Lyato and Sydney Mwansa v. DPP, Muchemwa’s legal team argued that the state failed to establish a clear link between the alleged offence and the properties in question.
They maintained that the threshold of “reasonable suspicion” under Section 71(1) of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act (FPOCA) was not met.
But the appellate court was unconvinced.
“We are satisfied that the subordinate court was on firm ground in convicting the appellant,” the judges stated.
The judges stated: “He failed to rebut the prosecution’s case with any credible documentation or explanation.”
WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.
Comments