Lusaka, January, 2025 – The Court of Appeal has granted the State leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in a high-stakes non-conviction-based forfeiture case involving Sydney Mwansa, a bus conductor who is also a convicted drug dealer. The ruling highlights the fact that forfeiture laws apply indiscriminately, cutting across all social and economic classes.

Mwansa’s legal troubles began in 2016 when he was arrested for drug-related offences. Investigators uncovered that, despite his modest earnings, he owned substantial assets, including a prime property in New Kasama, a house in Kamwala, and a Girsan pistol. The State argued that his known income was insufficient to lawfully acquire such wealth.

In the High Court, Mwansa successfully explained the acquisition of his Kamwala house and pistol, but the New Kasama property raised red flags. Unable to justify its purchase, the court declared it tainted and ordered its forfeiture to the State.

Mwansa appealed, and the Court of Appeal overturned the forfeiture, ruling that the State had not proven a link between the property and criminal proceeds. Unwilling to let the decision stand, the State sought leave to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.

The State argued that the case raises a point of law of public importance, particularly in defining “tainted property” under Zambia’s evolving asset recovery laws. It contended that:

The interpretation of forfeiture laws requires Supreme Court guidance.
The case presents a new legal question with significant implications.
There is a reasonable prospect of success in the appeal.
The New Kasama property should remain frozen until the Supreme Court delivers its ruling.

The Court of Appeal, acknowledging the far-reaching legal implications, granted leave to appeal, stating that a final determination from the Supreme Court was necessary to refine Zambia’s forfeiture jurisprudence. The court also stayed execution of its judgment, ensuring that ownership of the contested property remains unresolved until the apex court rules.

This ruling is more than a legal skirmish – it is a test of Zambia’s asset recovery framework. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will shape how courts interpret “tainted property” and determine the threshold of proof required for forfeiture.

Above all, this case reinforces a critical principle: forfeiture laws do not discriminate. Whether a bus conductor or a high-profile figure, those who amass unexplained wealth will face scrutiny.