Lungu’s daughter, Chiyeso asks court to set aside forfeiture of assets case 


EDGAR Lungu’s daughter Chiyeso has asked the Economic and Financial Crimes Court to throw out the case in which the State wants to grab her properties worth K9.3 million on suspicion that they were amassed through graft.

She said the Director of Public Prosecutions Gilbert Phiri has instituted an action against her yet he had failed to serve her the court documents.

Chiyeso, who was inaugurated as a practising lawyer in 2018, has two farms with a high-cost house, four chicken runs and three flats in Lusaka’s State Lodge area, property worth K9, 375, 438.62, and acquired between 2013 and 2021.

She is also the owner of Crest lodge in Lusaka’s Ibex Hill.

But according to the DPP, there was no way Chiyeso could have owned property worth that much because investigations show that the former president’s daughter only opened her first bank account with FNB on December 9, 2014 and had no significant transactions since it was opened until 2018 when she started using it as a salary account.

Filing an affidavit in support of notice of a non conviction based forfeiture order in the Economic and Financial Crimes Court on behalf of the DPP, Emmanuel Khondowe submitted that Chiyeso’s property be forfeited to the State.

He argued that the former president’s daughter has assets that are disproportionate to her income neither did she have viable sources of income.

But in her affidavit in support of summons to set aside proceedings for irregularity, Chiyeso stated that on June 23, 2023 she was served with a letter and an affidavit in support of originating notice of motion and skeleton arrangements attached to it.

She stated that in the said letter, the DPP advised that she would be served the originating notice of motion later.

Chiyeso said to date she has not been served the originating notice of motion relating to her ‘graft’ case and she is ignorant about the reliefs sought by the State.

She stated that the DPP has a mandatory obligation to serve her with the originating notice of motion.

“As an interested party, I am entitled to not less than one month’s notice from the date of receipt of the originating notice of motion,” Chiyeso said.

“The failure or neglect on the part of the DPP to serve me with the originating notice of motion is an irregularity warranting the setting aside of the originating process. In the circumstances I verily believe that I apply to have the process set aside for irregularity.”

She indicated that she has proved that the DPP who moved a motion before the EFCC  failed and neglected to serve or notify the interested parties in accordance with the mandatory prescribed rules of the Court.

By Mwaka Ndawa

Kalemba August 3, 2023.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here