This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.

---

In his application, Mr. Nchito said the judgment indicated that the properties were acquired with the proceeds of offences and that Section 41, Sub-Section C of the Anti-Corruption Act…stated that on the findings of the court, such properties be forfeited to the State. When asked by the court to reply to the application, Bulaya asked for an adjournment of the case because he had re-engaged his lawyers to represent him. But in response, Mr. Nchito said Bulaya could not say he wanted to retain his lawyers at such a late stage because judgment had been passed and he was already serving his sentence. He said that the only part that was left was to enable the arresting officer to be present when applying for forfeiture of the properties. At this point, Bulaya’s lawyer, Nicholas Chanda, informed the court that there were provisions which stated that a lawyer could be retained at any time and that it was not in dispute that they were withdrawn from the case. Mr. Chanda urged the court to adjourn the matter so that he could also make an application on another day. But in his ruling, Mr. Musona stated that it was trite law that a lawyer may still be retained on the case but in order to do so procedures must be followed by filing a notice of appointment or by putting himself on record. Mr. Chanda has since appealed against Mr. Musona’s ruling on the forfeiture of the property, arguing that the magistrate erred on a point of law because there was a precedent set by the Task Force on Corruption in a similar matter. This was in a case in which the court passed judgment in favour of former Zambia Intelligence Security Services (ZISS) former chief Xavier Chungu and two others, and the Task Force on Corruption stated that it could not hand back the properties because it had appealed against the ruling.⁵³