africa.law — Free African Legal Information

Judgment

IN THE SUBORDINATE COURT OF THE FIRST CLASS SSPA/007/22 FOR THE LUSAKA DISTRICT HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (Economic and Financial Crimes Division) BETWEEN: THE PEOPLE vs , ,,1 KINGSLEY CHANDA AND CALLISTUS KAOMA ' I BEFORE : MAGISTRATE SYLVIA MUNYINYA OKOH For the State : Ms. Mwangala For A1 : J Mataliro of James and Doris Legal Practitioners For A2 : W.M Kabimba (SC) of WM Kabimba and Company and S.K Simwanza of Steven Osborne Advocates JUDGMENT ·•O I I CASES REFERRED TO; • Machipisha Kombe v The People (S.C.Z JUDGEMENT No. 27 OF 2009) I • Nsofu v The People (1973) Z.R. 287 • Chitambala Ntumba v The Queen (1963-1964) Z. AND N.R.L.R. 132 • Fredson Kango Yamba and Principal Resident Magistrate and The Attorney General (2022/HPCF/08) • Mwewa Murano v The People (2004) Z.R. 207 (S.C.) I The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ■ Nabob Oil Co. v. United States 190 F.2d 478 (10th Cir. 1951) R v Senior [1899] 1Q .B.283 ■ ■ The People v Austin Chisangu Liato (Appeal 291 of 2014) [2015] ZMSC 26 ■ Woomington v. OPP (1935) AC 462,481 i • Emmanuel Phiri and Others v The People (1978) Z.R. 79 (S.C.) ■ Bornface Chauluka Tembo v The People (1978) Z.R. 402 (S.C.) I ■ RV Rudd [1948] 32 Cr. App. R. 138 ■ Shamwana and 7 Others v The People (1985) Z:R. 41 (S.C.) I STATUTES REFERRED TO: • The Criminal procedure Code Chapter 88 of the Laws of Zambia The Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012 ■ 1;,1'\J\3LIC OF ZAMs1 ~ JUDICIARY ,q MAGISTRATE COURT C0\1PLEX -]© • I ~ o ~~-r ~025 , CHIEF RESIDENT f11>1G1~ 1·RATE "'0 i,.-f.1'-' 0 Box 30202, \_US ' The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 2 ?usUC OF ZAMBt,i l'-<c: JUDICIARY • I MAGISTRATE COURT q_OMPLEX O6 202~]@ 1.0 . INTRODUCTION OCT M""'"' CHIEF RESIDENT RATE 1.1 The accused stand charged with 2 LIIJS, of Willful fai!YJ · amply with procedure · Box 30202, 1. · contrary to Section 34 (2) (b) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012. 1.2 The particulars of offence are as follows: Count '1 : Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kao ma on dates unknown but between 1st January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, ,'() Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue i I Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and i procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABK 6092, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. Count 2: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st ' January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commi~sioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue tQ Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedwe relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABF 8339, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. Count 3: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the ' Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue i Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and ' The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 3 procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor vehicle namely, Mitsubish Pajero bearing registration number ABF 3858, the property I of Zam bi~ Revenue Authority .. Count 4: ,Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissi.oner General and Di.rector Administration respectively, at Zcimbia Revenue ,Q Authority, a public body, did wilfully fail to comply with, the applir;able law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABL 1533, the property I of Zambia Revenue Authority .. Count 5: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the Lusaka ~rovince of the R~public of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Di.rector Administration respectively, at ZEimbia Revenue Authority,. a public body, did willfully fail to comply with, the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor rO ' vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABL 6927, the property I of Zambia Revenue Authority., Count 6: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in thle Lusaka District of the Lusaka ~rovince of the Rf public of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Di.rector Administration respectively, at ZEimbia Revenue Authority, ,a public body, did willfully fail to comply with• the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the ma ey, ,s~~,.,. motor . ~ JUDICIARY '1 MAEGISTR~ATE C2OUR~T,COM]PL©EX , ~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma l".l-ltFF RESIDENT MAGISTRATE vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABV 5918, the property I of Zambia Revenue Authority. Count 7: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st I: January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the . I ' Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner Gen'eral and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the ppplicaole law and ' procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor vehicle namely, Toyota Corolla bearing registration number ABZ 7209, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. Count 8: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st I' .. ' I January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the . I ' Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and ' ' ' . procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABL 3850, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. i : Count 9:Kingsley Chanda and Cal!istus Kaoma on dates unknown but. between 1st January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the I . Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, I Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue Authority, a public body, did willf~lly fail to comply with the applicaole law and I procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration · tl'.i\'Blil~l38, · operty · · JUDICIARY ~I of Zambia Revenue Authority. MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX I O6 OCT 20;~~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 5 CHIEF RESIDE.NT MAGISTRATE -·--- Count 10: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia .Revenue Authority, a_ public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable. law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABP 8128, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. () Count 11:Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st ' January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissio~er General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and I procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they .disposed a motor vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABR 9683, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. I Count 12: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st .rQ January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at ZambiaHevenue ' ' Authority, a_ public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable. law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABL 3751, the property i of Zambia Revenue Authority. i Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue I Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the' applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABM 8166, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. Count 14 : December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zan:ibia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero I bearing registration numberABL 3753, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. Count 15: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the Lusaka Province of . the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor I . vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABL 3851, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. Count 16: Kingsley Chanda1and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Ad(llinistration respectively, at Zambia Revenue Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with th· · le law and , l':.l'UBLI F ZA.Me procedure relating to the disposal of property in the anlfor ~1rdiooo2o0ec2f'1~a lm ' I MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX l ~ o 6 OCT The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABM 987, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. Count 17: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st I January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the , I Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue A~thority, a public body, did wilfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the 'disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor 0 I vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABR 9679, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. Count 18: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st i I J~nuary, 2017 and 31st December, 202b, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the ' Lusaka Province of the Republic of ·zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and p;ocedure relating to the •disposal of prop~rty in the manner they disposed a motor I vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ALC 9120, the property :(.') of Zambia Revenue Authority. Count 19 :Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st I i January, 2017 and 31st 'December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the , I I Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and ' I procedure relating to the disposal of prop'erty in the manner they disposed a motor I vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ALC 9123, the property . l'usUC OF ZAMa,-'i of Zambia Revenue Authority. '<'-~ JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE gQYB,2T ~O0M2PLE5X 70 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma j~ ~CT Count 20: Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kao ma on dates unknown but between 1st January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the I Lusaka Province of the . Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, ' . I Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue . I Authority, a public body, did willfully faii to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor I ' vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing ~egistration number ABV 2201, the property ' I . of Zambia Revenue Authority. I' Co_unt 21: Kingsley Chanda ,and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st January, 2017 and 31st· December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the I Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, . . : I Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue Authority, a public body, did willfully faii to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the di~posal of prop~rty i~ the manner they disposed a motor ! vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ASL 2465, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. Count 22 :Kingsley Chanda .and Callistus Kaoma on dates unknown but between 1st January, 2017 and 31st December, 2020, at Lusaka in the Lusaka District of the I Lusaka Province of the Republic of Zambia, being Public Officers namely, . . I Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue Authority, a public body, did willfully faii to comply with the applicable law and ' ' procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed a motor I 1 • vehicle namely, Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABR 9684, the property I , of Zambia Revenue Authority. i 1.3. The accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges and eeded to trial. I l'l.)Sl 1l3/,ij ~ I ii.\,;i .<c: JUDICIARY ' , I MAGISTRATE ~RT ~0MPLEX ,he eeo,le- ""~le, Chaoda aod eams<os ,a,ma U 6 OC·T' .2025 s 1.4. The State called a total of sixteen witnesses. I observe that there was a mis-numbering in respect of the witness, Bevious Chibale, who ought to have been recorded as PW9 but was instead numbered as PW10 alongside Allen Simpokolwe. This judgment will correct that error. The defence, on its part, called two witnesses, namely the accused persons themselves. 1.5. At the close of the defence, I invited parties to file written submissions which I acknowledge receipt. I am grateful for their submissions and I remain indebted. 2.0. THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE 2.1. PW1, Sitali Mulozi, testified that between 2017 and 2020, he was employed as the Administration Manager at the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA), reporting directly to the Director of Administration, A2 herein. One of his key responsibilities was asset management, which included the acquisition and disposal of institutional property, except for seized goods. The disposal function was carried out by a committee, to which PW1 served as Secretary ..... 6t the time, the committee was chaired by the JV<by t./41 :-e c/ Director of Administration, A2 . .' U 2.2. Disposals were governed by the ZRA Asset Disposal Procedure (P1 ), which provided for a committee responsible for disposing of obsolete, disused, and unserviceable assets. The procedure outlined the functions, specific duties, and composition of the committee, as well as the methods of disposal. These included public auction, internal tender, lottery, donation, and destruction, depending on the type of item, such as stamps. 2.3. The disposal process began when user departments compiled lists of items for disposal. For instance, the ICT department would list obsolete equipment, while the transport unit would compile a list of motor vehicles, motorbikes, and water vessels. These schedules were submitted to the Secretary of the Asset Disposal Committee, The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 10 ~~uBLIC OF ZA.Ma yi.; JUDICIARY l...:i PW1. For motor vehicles, PW1 would liaise with the Chairperson, A2, to convene a meeting. In most instances, A2 delegated the chairing of meetings to PW1, while his assistant, the Administration Officer, acted as Secretary. 2.4. During the meetings, the Transport and Security Manager, Mr. Martin Mugala, would present the vehicles proposed for disposal, along with details such as age, condition, 'I cost of repair, and proposed reserve price. Prior to 2015, ZRA predominantly used public auctions for disposal of vehicles. However, around 2014 or 2015, A2 informed . PW1 that there were complaints from staff who felt disadvantaged during auctions. Staff alleged that members of the public had formed cartels, making it difficult for them lo acquire vehicles, which were later resold at a profit. A2 instructed that the committee I henceforth recommend internal tender as the method of disposal. 2.5. Once the committee agreed with the proposals, PW1 and his assistant compiled a I i board paper seeking the Governing Board's approval. The paper included the /_isl of vehicles and supporting memoranda and was submitted by PW1 to A2, who then forwarded it to the Board Secretary for presentation at the next board meeting. If the I . board approved the disposal, the Board Secretary, then Suzyo Ngandu, would inform ' I • A2 through an official memo. A2 would, in turn, forward the approval to PW1. 2.6. Upon receiving board approval, an advert would be circulated internally via email to all Z8A staff. The advert detailed the conditions of the vehicles, the rules for the I internal tender, the tender duration, and payment deadlines. It also specified that staff ' . could_ only purchase one vehicle. If a staff member submitted multiple winning bids, lhe/~ould be required to select only one. If the highest bidder failed to pay within the . stipulated time, the lot would be awarded to the second-highest bidder. 2.7. Payment was made through bank cash deposits, after which the staff member would I' prese,nt the deposit slip to the Finance Department to amJ§li1Cofflc' , receipt. - JUDICIARY ~ MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX i bid The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma O6 OCT 2025 This receipt was then presented to the Administration Unit, where a gate pass would be issued by PW1 's assistant, Melber Lutangu, or another officer in the sect,ion. A copy of the finance receipt would be attached to the gate pass as proof of payi ment. The gate pass had to be approved by either the Administration Officer, PW1, or A2. I 2.8. The staff member would then. present the gate pass to the Transport and Security Section. After verifying the details, I.he section would issue a letter of change of I ownership addressed to the Road Transport and Safety Agency, provide the original white book, and hand over the vehicle keys. The security officers would verify the gate () pass and allow the officer to leave with the vehicle. The gate pass was issu.ed in three • I copies, one for the buyer, one for the security section, and one for the administration services section. At the time, the rule was that only one vehicle could be entered on ! each gate pass. Once this process was completed, the transaction was deemed closed as far as ZRA was concerned. 2.9. PW1 testified that, in accordance with the Authority's motor vehicle replacement policy, any proposal to dispose of a vehicle began with a submission from the Transport and Security Section. I 2.10. He recalled that A1 approach~d him and mentioned that some external individuals were interested iri purchasing the Authority's used vehicles. PW1 informed A1 that the i I only way such externals could participate was through public auctio~, with no guarantee they would secure the vehicles. 2.11. Shortly thereafter, A2 confide~ in PW1 that these external persons were members of the then ruling party, the Patriotic Front, and that senior officials had sent the request through the Commissioner General, who, at that time, was A1 . A2 told PW1 that the Commissioner General was aware and had instructed him to facilitate the request. ! i The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus· Kaoma 2.12. PW1 stated that he repeated to A2 that external persons could not participate in an internal tender. The only possible way for them to obtain vehicles was by buying from members of staff who had purchased them internally, since staff could lawfully resell at a higher price. A2 asked whether sta~ would be willing to sell, and PW1 responded that it was uncertain and that directly asking winners after ea.ch tender would be tedious and raise suspicion. 2.13. According to PW1, A2 then suggested that, when preparing adverts for disposal, not all approved vehicles should be listed for sale to staff. CJ 2.14. In the 2017 te~der, the first after that discussion, following board approval, PW1 prepared the advert and sent it to A2 for review, as was standard practice before circulation. A2 called him to his office, pointed out which vehicles should be excluded, and indicated he would check with the Transport Unit to identify those in better ' condition. 2.15. After finalising the advert, now excluding the selected vehicles, it was circulated to all staff. A2 later gave PW1 a list of names to be awarded the excluded vehicles. Some names were familiar, but system checks, revealed they were members of staff. I 2.16. PW1 testified that A2 would provide money, usually above the reserve price, I sometimes leaving part of it with PW1 to be deposited by their clerk into the Authority's ! bank account under the provided names. Finance would then issue Zambia Revenue Authority receipts in those names, and ~ate passes would be prepared accordingly. PW1 would hand over the receipts and gate passes to A2, whil.e the Transport Unit supplied change of ownership letters, ke_ys, and white books. 2.17. PW1 stated that this practice occurred in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Towards the end of 2020/2021, A2 informed him that he no longer had external people to make payments on his behalf and asked PW1 to identify staff in the Administration The People v Kingsley Chan.da and Callistus Kaoma I Department willing to have vehicles purchased in their names for him. PW1 approached several staff members, informing them it was at the' Director's request. • I Some agreed and collected money directly from A2; others re.ceived funds through : I, PW1. 2.18. Vehicles were excluded from adverts to reserve them for the interested externals, the Patriotic Front, for use in party mobilisation and campaign activities. He noted that this exclusion breached the Authority's policy,' which required that all approved vehicles be sold through internal tender without exceptions. 0 ! 2.19. The Zambia Revenue Authority Asset Disposal Policy and Procedures document i (Exhibit P1) was developed by the Asset Disposal Committee, of which he was a member, and was available in both physical and electronic form. The document ' I constitutes the Asset Disposal Committee (AOC) and provides for its composition in ' Section 5. It mandates the committee to superintend over the process of disposal of obsolete ZRA assets. It also lists the methods of disposal and describes how an internal tender should be conducted. 2.20. He also produced the schedules for the vehicles 2017 to 2020 as exhibit P2; board resolutions for 2017 to 2020 and memos from the Board Seqr~tary to the Director Administration with schedules of vehicles approved for 2017 to 2020 as exhibit P3; adverts for 2017 to 2020 as exhibit P4 which were availed to him by Martin Mugala after he was put on suspension duririg investigatio' n of this matter due to his . ' involvement as he didn't have access to the emails; Gate passes for 2018 to 2020 as exhibit P5. I 2.21. Mr Mulozi stated that in 2017, they submitted 29 vehicles and all the 29 were approved for disposal and the 2017 advert for disposal had 24 vehicles. There was an extra vehicle which was approved in the previous year 2016 d unsold. · 9-'2? .13, ,JUDICIARY C<1 cr,c , MAGISTRArE """I.EX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma blAFcr ·1{!) Therefore, the total number of vehicles was 30 and of the 30, only 24 were advertised at the instruction of A2. A2 gave him back the advert with vehicles to be excluded marked which were the following: 1. Nissan Tiida, ABV 5918 2. Toyota Hilux, ABM 987 • 3. Mitsubishi ABL 3753 4. Mitsubishi Pajero, ABL 3851 ' 5. Nissan Har9body, ABL 6927 6. Mitsubishi Pajero, ABL 2465 2.22. The 2018 schedule had 19 vehicles and the board approved 14 vehicles. The advert had 13 vehicles and excluded were the following: 1. Mitsubishi Pajero, ABP 8128 2. Nissan Yuvan, ABP 6406 I ' 3. Mitsubishi Pajero, ABL 3850 2.23. In 2019, 14 vehicles were proposed for disposal, 13 were approved by the board and 10 vehicles were advertised which included one water vessel. The vehicles excluded from the advert were the following: 1. Mitsubishi Pajero, ABR 9684 2. Mitsubishi Pajero, ABR 9679 I 3. Toyota Corolla, ABZ 7211. 2.24. In the 2020 schedule, 16 vehicles were recommended for disposal, 13 were approved by the Board and ,9 were advertised. The excluded vehicles were : I 1. Toyota Hilux, ALF 4655 2. Toyota Hilux, ALF 7734 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 't:-1'\JSLIC OF ZAMe1-'I ~ JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE COURT CQ_MPLEX j!\ 3. Toyota Hilux, ALC 9417 202sj~ u oc_~. 4. Jeep Cherokee, BAG 7751 CHIEF RESIDENT M"GiSTRATE /0 r,,'f-~' 5. Toyota Landcruiser, BAA 8904 ·O. Box 30202, 1..1.1S 2.25. The said vehicles were excluded from the advert at the instruction of A2. The Policy prescribed that all the vehicles approved for disposal be disposed in the manner proposed and approved so the exclusion was against the policy. 2.26. Under cross examination by counsel for A1 , he stated that the composition in the Policy does not include the office of the Commissioner General and in the Policy, the C) Commissioner General does not play any role in disposal of vehicles. In reJation to the disposal, he never received a memo or email from A1 and the disposal was without his involvement. When A2 told him that A1 ' s office was aware of dealing wit_h externals, he did not confirm with A1 . The Commissioner Modernisation had no role to play in . the process and A2 at some point was reporting to the same commissioner. He did not inform commissioner modernisation of the instruction given by A2. When advising ' A2 how externals would participate, no on else was present and he did not inform anyone about the instruction but his colleagues were aware and there was no reason I why he did not inform court of this. He did not agree that he did not do so because he I 0 did npt inform anyone. 2.27. Referring to P4, particularly the 2017 advert, he stated that there is no thr~ad showing that before being sent to all, it went to A2 then back to him. He did not have an email sent. to A2 for approval and an email coming from A2 to him for approval or with instructions. He did not ask Mr Mugala and Mukuka for that email because the email was only sent to A2 and they had no access. He did not write to ZRA so that they give \ him access to the email for purposes of this matter. He did not make any effort to access the email. He did not exhibit any gate pass approved by A1 and he had nothing to do with the gate passes that he spoke about. He did not agree that since he The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 16 generated the adverts, he was the one who breached the policy by leaving out some vehicles. 2.28. When cross examined by counsel for A2, he stated that he did not participate in the i formulation of the policy and it was amended thrice during his time. A2 delegated the I chairing of the 1;1DC meetings to him but he did not have full powers of the direc.tor and the powers was only for purposes of chairing the committee. He did not find it irregular ' that he was performing the duty ,and they were minutes taken in the meetings. He did not have minutes before court for 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 but they should be there. He did not bring them because it was not in his discretion to choose what evidence to bring. It was correct that communication was through memos and emails. He I confirmed having authored P4 2.29. Selection of successful bidders was not done by the committee but they were addressed to the chairperson of the committee and the committee was not involved in I making offers to bidders. The offers were done by any assistant administrative dficer, administrative officers, administrative managers or anyone from the administration unit and not the director. There were· no signed offers. The committee had no role in who the successful bidder. On the committee, he did inform the Transport Manager that Q some vehicles had been excluded. 2.30. He was suspended because of the role he played in the disposal of the vehicles and I he did buy a vehicle in 2016 or 2018 which was subject to the charge. It was the time he chaired the meetings and hei did not declare interest. He did not declare that his employment was terminated because of this and the charges that led to the termination had nothing to do with this matter. He was not charged because he was the chairman of the committee The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 2.31. He did not say that A2 gave money to successful bidders and he was not there when A2 was doing so but confirmed that he gave to some whom he could not remember but a few 2.32. He was the administration manager and one of his roles was to keep documents. He ' was custodian of asset disposal scheme documents. He was the secretary of the ADC ' and he kept the documents for asset disposal of motor vehicle program. A2 was his supervisor and their relationship was cordial and professional. He could say that he trusted him to the extent that he trusted him with chairmanship of the ADC. A2 delegated chairmanship to him. The ADC meetings were convened by emails from him as secretary of the committee but he did not have a copy of the emails with him. The meetings culminated in some minutes but he did not have a copy. 'He chaired the meetings in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020. 2.33. He could not recall if the vehicles sold in 2017 were audited and no one came informing _him that there was something wrong with the procedure. He could not also recall receiving queries on vehicles sold in 2018, 2019 and 2020. The minutes did not reach the board of directors. The scheme did not start with the Trans port Department and end with the committee. They never dealt with non ZRA employee as a bidder and_no Q vehicle was sold to non ZRA employee from the scheme. The reserved vehicles were ~old by being paid for by non-bidders and it was not under the ncin-bidding scheme. The non- bidders were still ZRA employees. A2 was the one who gave him instructions verbally to reserve some vehicles. It was not his evidence that in the four years he managed the scheme, all instructions from A2 were verbal. He1 did not have any ·do·cu~men-t of- ins-tru-ctio-ns- to -res-erv-e v-ehi-cle-s fr-om- A2-. The procedu~e that A2 breached ' was not allowing the highest bidders to pay for the approved vehicles and he could not remember saying that all vehicles were sold to highest bidders. ---~~~ 1:,l'llBLIC OF ZAMe ,,: JUDICIARY l/-4® . MAGISTRATE COIJPT MMPl.EX ~ j ~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma Q ~~-T 2025 r1-rn:i: Ri:c:m~MT h. .11,..c:- 2.34. He did not say that the idea of selling vehicles to members of staff was mooted in 2015 and it did not exclude senior members such as himself from purchasing the vehicles. It was not the position that he did not produce 'minutes because the committee never met and that it was a one-man committee. 2.35. PW2, Bright Chintu Himuyamba, aged 49 years, a Senior Financial Accountant at tre Zambia Revenue Authority testified that in 2020, he held the same position within the Financial Division. His duties in February 2020 included maintaining the asset register, which records all assets acquired and those disposed of. 2.36. On 10th ,February 2020, while preparing for audits, he reviewed records of assets that . I had been disposed of and identified several vehicles that had been auctioned to ! members of staff. In the course of this review, he discovered four vehicles, two Toyota Hilux and two Mitsubishi Pajero, that, according to the memo from A2 to A1 seeking approval for their disposal, had not been ap'proved for disposal by the Board as required by procedure. 2.37. He raised the matter with his immediate supervisor, Mr. Charles Chilebe, the Assistant Director, by sending him an email (P6) and copying the Director of Finance. In his communication, PW2 stated that while the fo~r vehicles had been disposed of, he could not locate any record of Board approval. Mr. Chilebe then referred the matter to the Director, Mr. Milambo, who in turn requested documentation from A2. 2.38. Later, Mr. Milambo informed him that he had .received the relevant documents and summoned him to his office on 12th February 2020._ At that meeting, Mr. Milambo handed him two memos (P?(a) and P7(b)). Tbe first memo highlighted that some_ - vehicles had indeed been approved for sale by the governing Board, and that following ' this approval, additional vehicles, about four to five in total, also in poor condition, had 1:-1'\JBLIC OF ZAlvtei ,>: JUDICIARY "l MAGISTRATE COll~T r11MPLEX • The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma -~~;r 202sl~ been identified for disposal. The second memo was from A1 , approving the sale of the vehicles and indicating that the Board would be informed of the additional disposals. 2.39. Both memos had attachments, including lett,ers from the Secretary to the Treasury. ' The second memo also contained the Secretary to the Treasury's approval, addressed to A1 , under the subject "Request to Dispose of Obsolete Motor Vehicles in Accordance with the Asset Disposal Policy 2019." 2.40. Acting on the instructions from Mr. Milar:nbo and relying on the memos and . I attachments provided, PW2 proceeded to r~move the vehicles from the asset register. 2.41. On 13th February 2020,: he was called by Mr. Milambo, who told him they needed to meet A1 . He accompanied Mr. Milambo ahd Mr. Chilebe to A1 's office, where they found A1 with A2. A1 asked him to explain the problem with the vehicles. He stated that the four vehicles he was to remove from the asset register lacked Board approval, : I • contrary to the Asset Di~posal Policy. A1 responded that, since there were additional , i I vehicles besides those a)ready approved for sale, he could approve the others himself and the Board would be informed. i 2.42. PW2 testified that he felt distressed at being a_sked to explain directly to A1 the content of discussions he had held with the Director of Finance, as it was unusual for a junior ' officer to be summoned by the Commissioner General on such matters, which were ordinarily resolved through the Director or Commissioner. Acting on the memos and instructions from his superiors, PW2 sub?equently removed the vehicles from the ' asset register. 2.43. Under cross-examinatio8 by Counsel for A1 , pw2 explained that the issue of the four motor vehicles arose while he was preparing for an upcoming audit. He confirmed that there was proof the vehicles had been sold to the respective officers, with receipts issued to show that ZRA had received payment for them. I ' l'\lt1UC OF ZAMe1_,, <;>.'2 ,IUDICI.ARY MAGISTRATE_C.Q_\!RT ~';\\PLEA The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ltffi} 1:iilt ~CT 2025 2.44. Referring to exhibit P?a, he stated that the letter was a response to A1 ' s correspondence to the Secretary to the Treasury, seeking authority to dispose of motor vehicles. However, he had not seen the original letter from A1 and had not asked to view it. He was unaware that each time motor vehicles were disposed of, such a letter was required under the Public Finance Act 2018 to obtain authority from the Secretary to the Treasury. 2.45. When shown an unmarked document, PW2 identified it as a letter dated 16th August 2018 addressed to the Commissioner General, similar to the one attached to P?a. The ( letter granted approval to dispose of vehicles in accordance with policy, and its second page contained an approval from the Secretary to the Treasury to the Commissioner General, dated August 2020. Both documents sought approval in compliance with the Public Finance Act and referred to disposal und~r the ZRA asset disposal policy. He stated that he had not seen an earlier letter dated 19th September 2019 from the Commissioner General to the Secretary to the Treasury. 2.46. PW2 explained that he did not know the precise point at which the Commissioner - ------ General would write to the Secretary to the- T-r-e-asury, but understood the procedure to - be that the ADC made a proposal to the Commissioner General, who would then communicate with the Secretary to the Treasury, not after the Board's approval. He did. not know whether such letters were accompanied by a list of assets, and could not confirm if the four vehicles were on any such list. ? I 2.47. While he was aware that the Board approved recommendations and decisions from ' the committee and management, he did not know whether the Board sometimes ratified such decisions after the fact. ~e had not established whether the Board had ~een informed about the four vehicles and had seen no documents showinglbat the _Board either declined to ratify the sales or raised queries_a bou_t_!!_lem. ~'c.pUBLIC OF ZAMs J()D/CfARY I~ MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLlz>J.. The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ti'ii / o n or.r ~~?·~7~ 2.48. He further testified that he did not know under which commission the ADC fell and did not report to the Commissioner of Modernisation about being brought before the Commissioner General by his supervisors. He was unaware that Mr Mulozi was responsible for preparing a list of vehicles for disposal to the ADC and then to the Board . .He had also not encountered any audit queries regarding the disposal __o f ;kw dt'A vehicles between 2018 and 2020. cfl( {()IJ'Y!C~ / 2.49. Under cross-examination by Counsel for A2, PW2 stated that he could not confirm whether the four vehicles had been purchased by ZRA staff members. He explained that all documents relating to the disposal of vehicles from 2017 to 2020 that concerned Finance ended up in the Finance Department. His concern about the four vehicles related solely to the lack of Board approval. 2.50. He emphasised that the Commissioner General was accountable to the Board, but that the Board was not the only body that could question the Commissioner General if something went wrong within ZRA. Other than the Board, however, the Commissioner General had no direct supervisor. 2.51. According to PW2, the breach by A1 lay in failing to provide the Board's approval. He stated that reporting to the Board was not part of the procedure under the Asset Disposal Policy. Ratification meant approval after the fact, but he could not say jt:;JL , ? whethe~s uch a process was procedurally ac~ptable within administr~ 2.52. He confirmed that he had removed the four vehicles from the register and that they were no longer with ZRA, though he did not know their current whereabouts. 2.53. PW3, Eddie Kateule Mulenga, aged 49 years, was employed as an Administrative Clerk at the ZRA. He testified that on 23rd November 2018, 1 Mr. Mulozi informed him . that A2 had given him the sum of K31,200.00 for the purchase of a motoi:_ve_hLcle, registration number ABM 8166, which was being dis MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 1n?~·1 ~i I: os oc r M'::.- --- =-- -- further provided him with a ZRA account number with Zanaco for purposes of depositing the said amount. 2.54. PW3 proceeded to Zanaco, completed the deposit slip (exhibit P8A), and indicated on it that the payment was for internal tender of ABM 8166 .. Upon depositing the money, he was issued with a till slip (exhibit P88) bearing the same details. Because he had handled the funds as a third party, be made copies of the till slip in case the original ' was misplaced. He then handed the original till slip to Mr. Mulozi, who informed him that he would deliver it to A2. /0 2.55. PW3 recalled that earlier that year, ZRA had advertised vehicles for sale, but the I tender had already closed by the time the matter was brought to him. He heard nothing further about the transaction until March 2019, when Mr. Langson Lungu, a Data Entry I Officer in the Trans port Department, approached him requesting his National Registration Card for purposes of effecting a change of ownership of the said vehicle. PW3 told Mr. Lungu that he had never purchased a vehicle from ZRA. However, Mr. I Lungu insisted and showed him a letter (exhibit P9) dated 7th March 2019, authored by Mr. Martin Mugala, Security and Transport, instructing the Principal Registrar at RA TSA to change ownership of the vehicle from ZRA to PW3. ---o 2.56. He told Mr Lungu that he did not wish to be associated with a motor vehicle he had never purchased. Mr. Lungu then informed him that the vehicle's ownership was to be changed from his name to that of the actual owner, whose identity he did not disclose. ' '' When PW3 refused to provide his NRG, he later approached Mr. Mulozi about the matter. Mr. Mulozi advised him to proceed and give the NRC since the vehicle was intended for A2, his superior. PW3, who only had his driver's licence on him at the I time, provided Mr. Lungu with a copy of it instead. The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma I 2.57. In 2022, PW3 was summoned by the Internal Affairs Department for an interview concerning the said vehicle. He was asked whether he had purchased it, and was informed that investigations revealed it was registered in the name of,Vage Land Farm Ltd. PW3 stated that he did not own the company, although he had observed vehicles bearing that branding at A1 ' s residence. I 2.58. Subsequently, police officer also interviewed him regarding the vehicle and informed I him that its ownership had been transferred from his name to Mr. Matthews Manda, who was at the time employed by ZRA and served as A1 ' s driver. When asked if he had sold the vehicle to Mr. Manda, PW3 denied it, stating that it was, impossible since .. he had never possessed the vehicle. ; 2.59. He stated that his duties as Administrative Clerk included removing old furniture from I A1 ' s residence and delivering new furniture when purchased. 2.60. Under cross-examination, PW3 stated that it was Mr Mulozi who informed him of the source of the money for the purchase of the motor vehicle. He did ,not approach A2 directly and could not confirm whether the funds had in fact come from him. He was therefore unable to attest to the truthfulness of what Mr Mulozi told ~im. He explained that after making the bank deposit, he handed both the depos1it slip and till ~lip to Mr I Mulozi, who claimed that he had given them to A2, though PW3 did not confirm if A2 ever received the documents. 2.61. With regard to the letter P9, PW3 stated that he did not make a copy of ii and never had custody of the original. In respect of the deposit slip, he confirmed that he I • personally filled in the document while alone at the bank, and that the handwriting thereon was not his. He denied that anyone was whispering to him at the bank. He was aware that persons who had successfully bid for vehicles from ZRA would proceed to the bank to deposit funds into a ZRA account. sue oF ZAM <2.1'\.l 81,i . ~ JUDICIARY ' *~21©,24 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 2.62. He reiterated that he did not deliver the slips to any cashier at ZRA but rather gave them to Mr Mulozi, and there was no discussion about a ZRA receipt. He denied that Mr Langson Lungu had requested his NRC, and further denied that he had produced his driver's licence for purposes of change of ownership. He stated that by 2019, the vehicle's ownership had alre'ady been changed into his name, but he did not know in whose name it was intended:to be changed, nor did he inquire. He acknowledged that he did not prepare any written record to indicate that the vehicle had been forced upon him by his superiors. 2.63. PW3 further stated that in 2018, the substantive cashier at ZRA was Mr Yotamu Nyimba, and it was not true that he had taken the documents to a cashier after the bank deposit for issuance of a receipt. He denied having introduced the name Vage Land Farm Ltd in his dealings, explaining that it was the police who mentioned it during their interview with him. He conceded that prior to the police interview, he had been to A1 ' s residence on several occasions and had observed vehicles branded Vage Land Farm parked there. 2.64. He confirmed that P9 was indeed the letter shown to him by Mr Lungu in 2019, though not necessarily on 2nd March of that year. He did not, after seeing the letter, write to "O Mr Lungu to express his displeasure, nor did he write to RATSA to dispute ownership of the vehicle. He accepted that there was no documentary evidence before the court to support his claim that he did not ownJb.e_v.ebicle, and conceded that there was no_ reason why he could not have written to express his objection after being told he had purchased it. ,. 2.65. Finally, he stated that Mr Majthews Manda was an employee of ZRA and that he only came to know in 2022 that the said vehicle had been registered in Mr Manda's name. The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 2.66. When cross-examined by Counsel for A2, PW3 stated that he had been employed by the Authority since 2002. He was not familiar with the detailed asset disposal procedure at ZRA, though he was aware that a policy existed. He had once participated in the purchase of a printer from ZRA, for which he deposited money in ZRA's name without indicating that the payment was on behalf of another person. 2.67. He recalled giving a statement to the task force, but when shown an unmarked document, he clarified ihat ii was not his statement to the task force but to the Internal Affairs Department. Referring to line 13 on page 2 of the document, he explained that what he expected in exchange for giving his NRC was evidence showing that the vehicle was registered in his name, which he received in the form of the letter marked as Exhibit P9. He said that for him to release his NRC, he 1needed something in return. 2.68. Regarding the vehicle tender, he confirmed that the tender in question had closed in 2018, though he could not recall the month. At the time he was asked to make the payment for the vehicle, the tender had already closed. He was not involved in receiving tenders and was not Mr Mulozi's assistant. He did not know the exact dates when the tender opened or closed but was aware that it opened early in the year. He ' denied fabricating any part of his evidence. ·0 2.69. He further stated that When Mr Mulozi handed him the K31,200.00 for the vehicle, he i also provided the vehicle's particulars and a ZANACO account number for ZRA. After making the deposit, PW3 met A2 on several occasions b1ut never discussed with him the reason for depositing the money, nor did A2 thank him or acknowledge receiving the deposit slips. He reiterated that Mr Mulozi did not tell 1him that he had haade.cUhe . dep~a ~d"' the accused himself never gave him any money to paytorlhe I vehicle. RE.PUBLIC or: <;,j JUDICIARY ¼&14 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX fl O6 OCT 2025 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma CHIEF RES/D/:IJT ". -.• 2.70. When shown a receipt, PW3 confirmed that it was a ZRA receipt containing his name, the amount of K31,200.00, the particulars of the said vehicle, and other familiar details. However, he could not recognise the receipt as one he had personally received. He ! reiterated that he was not the purchaser of the vehicle and never obtained any receipt for the payment. He added that while Mr Lungu had shown him a letter, it was not one for change of ownership from ZRA to him. 2.71. PW4, Nalishebo Musipili, aged 58 years, is an examining officer at the Zambia Revenue Authority based at Mungwi Office. She joined ZRA in 2017. In 2018, on a date and month she could not recall, she received a phone call from Nkweto informing her that the Commissioner General wanted to see her regarding a vehicle he wanted her to purchase on his behalf. He further told her that the Commissioner General, A1 herein would call her to give her the full details. 2.72. lmmE/diately after the call, PW4 went to the office of the Commissioner General's secretary, but was informed that he was not in. On her third visit, she managed to see him. She explained that she was there in connection with the phone call she had received from Nkweto. A1 told her that he wanted her to help him purchase one of the vehicles that would be auctioned,' as he needed it to donate to a school he had built in ,Q ' Chinsali. She asked him why he could not make the purchase himself, and he explained that because of his position he could not buy the vehicle in his own name. He tcild her that he would contact her once all the documents were ready. 2.73. A month or two later, she received another call from Nkweto, who asked where she was. She told him she was at her home in Cha/ala. He informed her that he was having I lunch with A1 and instructed her to meet him by the roadside when she was ready. A few minutes later, he called again, and she proceeded to the roadside. A vehicle stopped and the window was lowered. Nkweto handed her a document in a khaki envelope and told her to sign it, adding that the Commissioner General was seated l'usUC OF ZAMe,,,. The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma <?- € JUDICIARY i MAGISTRATE COURT_~QMPL1X _ • = ·=-- == behind. A1 also lowered his window, greeted her, and told her to drop the signed document in the pigeon hole. 2.74. When PW4 got home, she opened the envelope and signed the document, indicating I her full names. She did not read its contents, as she already knew what it was about from her earlier discussion with A1 . The following morning at the office, she placed the envelope in the pigeon:hole as instructed. 2.75. About three to four months later, she received a call from a man reminding her about the vehicle and telling her that she needed to sign change of ownership documents. She met the man, who also worked for ZRA but whom she was meeting for the first time, in the car park. He handed her the documents, which she signed, after which he left with them. She heard nothing further about the matter until 2022, when she received a call from Internal Affairs requesting her to report for questioning. 2.76. The next morning, she went to Internal Affairs, where she found two men and one woman. One of them told her that she had obtained a vehicle in 2018 and asked where it was, as they wanted to repossess it. She told them that she had not bought any vehicle but recalled that she had been approached by the Commissioner General to help him purchase a vehicle for donation to a school in Chinsali. She narrated to them r"Q everything that had happened. They then showed her a folder containing documents, including a gate pass marked 1D10 showing the vehicle was given to her, and a ZANA CO receipt reflecting a payment of K12,500.00 for the vehicle. She told them that she had never made such a payment, had never bought the vehicle, and that it was her first time seeing the gate pass and bank receipt. 2.77. A few months later, sh~ was contacted by the Joint Investigations Team. When she went there, they also informed her that she had purchased a vehicle and needed to explain the circumstances. She repeated the same account she had iven to Internal 1:.?UBLIC or= Z4Me1. I'- JUDICIARY ,i r- co~x MAGISTRATE g_OU,R,T 28 Th~ People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kao ma ~it 1 I O R nr r ?n?i:: I,,~ SQ_ Affairs and to the court. She confirmed that she knew A1 , who was her boss, and that she had first known him through her aunt. 2. 78. Under cross-.examination by counsel for A1 , PW4 stated that she had received a call from Nkweto, although she could not recall the exact time or date. She could not remember the date she went to A1 's office, and she :,vas not aware of the procedure in the Commissioner General's office for members of the public or staff who wanted to • I see him. She di,d not know about the appointment book in which visitors were recorded and could not recall any record to prove that she had visited the office. She confirmed I. I ' that she had never had any informal meeting with A1 since the time she was I ' introduced to him through her aunt. ' I 2. 79. PW4 explained that the meeting where she was introduced to A1 was informal, took place before she was employed at ZRA, and occurred before the issue of the vehicle I purchase arose. She testified that the first time she received a cal/'from Nkweto, she did not kno1' him personally, but understood him to be an employee of ZRA, although she did not know his designation. She did not know whether he was in fact a ZRA employee or' someone who was merely in the company of A1 . She did not ask him why A1 could not purchase the vehicle himself. r() 2.80. She could not remember the date when Mr. Nkweto told her he was having lunch with A1 . She no longer had the documents she s\gned and confirmed that neither Internal Affairs nor the Joint Investigations Team (JIT) showed her those documents. She was I I not familiar with the procedure for purchasing obsolete ZRA vehicles, nor did she ask about the procEJdure at the Commissioner General's, office. She confirmed that her I meeting witp A1 in his office was solely about the vehicle purchase request and that she did not have an appointment. They did not discuss the manner in which she would I • carry out the request. She was unaware that; in 2018, the b. · or vehicles * · //. • '?f.'? JUDICIARY" 1Bt,i was con du qte d .~ Ie ctronIca y. • MIAGI STRATE COURT COMPLEX I:.'!" r O6 QC 2025 The People V Kingsley. ~handa and Callistus Kaoma 9 2.81. Regarding the folder shown to her by Internal Affairs, she stated that it contained a deposit slip, but she could not recall if ii had the depositor's name. She did not see any ZRA receipt and did not ask Internal Affairs or JIT if they had proof that she purchased the vehicle. They had only told her she had done so. She had not seen any document showing that A1 had purchased the vehicle, nor any evidence of ownership other than by A1 or ZRA. She did not see any change of ownership documents or proof that the vehicle had been donated to Chinsali Secondary School. 2.82. She agreed that in 2018, ZRA employees, including herself, were entitled to bid for vehicles. She did not know Mr. Mulozi and could not recall hearing that name. 2.83. When cross-examined by counsel for A2, PW4 confirmed that she knew both accused persons. She stated that A2 had never asked her to purchase the vehicle and had no role: in the matter. She was unaware that the vehicle had to be advertised or whether it had a purchase price in 2018. She recalled that she signed the form and placed it into the pigeon hole, knowing ii was for the tender because Mr. Nkweto had mentioned ' . it to her. She explained that he did not accompany her to the box; she found it herself and. inserted the doquments. 2.84. Regarding the change of ownership, she stated that she was called and informed that there was a document for change of ownership which she signed. She did not know whether the transfer from ZRA to herself was ever effected. She confirmed that she was still a ZRA employee and that no disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against her over the matter. I . 2.85. PW5, Moses Malembeka, a driver at ZRA, testified that on 16th January 2018, he went to the office of A2 to remind him about their earlier discussion concerning an unpaid acting allowance which was overdue. During the qiscussion, A2 mentioned that I there was an auction in progress and that he needed assistance ~~HODey into I 1:-Pll lvrl3, ~ .IUDICIARY ..< J couqr . MAGISTRATE 0/"\!JPLEX hlhFo~r 7 -19 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma i 202s the ZRA operations account for the purchase of a Pajero motor vehicle with registration numbe~ A2 gave him K20,000.00 and instructed him to make the deposit while a1f1aiting confirmation of the availability of the vehicle. 2.86. PW5 proceeded to ZANACO Cairo Branch to make the deposit. The teller requested the depositor's name, and he provided his own name and number. When asked the purpose of the deposit, he explained that it was for purchasing an auctioned vehicle. After completing the transaction, he was issued with a deposit slip, which he then took . . to the cashier to generate a ZRA receipt, as per the instructions given by A2. The cashier issued the receipt, and PW5 delivered both the deposit slip and receipt to A2, who in turn reminded him to follow up on his acting allowance issue. 2.87. In 2022, PW5 was summoned by Internal Affairs and asked whether he had purchased a vehicle from ZRA. He confirmed that he had purchased a Toyota Corolla with registration number ALG 9211. He was then shown two gate passes, one for a Pajero with registration number ABL 3753 (exhibit P11A) and another with registration number ABL 3851 (exhibit P11 B), which he recognised based on the details, along with a deposit slip for K20,000.00 linked to a Mitsubishi Pajero with registration number ABL 3753. When asked if he was aware of these documents, he confirmed that he O was, but clarified that he was not aware of buying an unadvertised vehicle without a lot number. He stated that he never bought any Pajero and explained the circumstances under which he made the deposit. He said he never saw the vehicles in question. The officers told him they would get back to him, but he was later dismissed from employment. I 2.88. Subsequently, he received a call from the JIT and again explained the events. He was shown the same documents and told that he had bought vehicles that were not advertised. He reiterated that he had not purchased any such vehicles. 1:,?ueuc OF Z4!vfe1, ?- JUDICIARY "1 ~IMA GISTRATE COURT COMPLEIXm The People v Kingsley Chanda and1Callistus Kaoma o 6 OCT 2025 2.89. PW5 further testified that in 2017, he had legitimately purchased a Toyota Corolla through a public auction. ZRA had sent out emails to staff about the auction, and he went through the advertised vehicles. He plac13d his bid in a box on the 10th floor, offering K25,000.00. He was initially ranked sixth among bidders, but when the higher bidders failed to complete their purchases, he was contacted and confirmed his ' I interest. He then made payment and was issued, a gate pass to collect the vehicle from Makeni. 2.90. When cross-examined by counsel for A1 , PW5 stated that the process of purchasing a vehicle from ZRA through auction was famil/ar to him, as he had used the same I procedure to purchase the Toyota Corolla. He explained that the process began with an advertisement for the property, which at the time was issued by thJ Manager, Administration, then Mr. Mulozi. Once the advert was published, interesied officers ' would lodge their bids, and the successful bidder would deposit the purchase money, informing the teller of the purpose of the deposit. The teller would then process the payment and issue a printout containing the de.tails. The deposit slip would be taken to the cashier, who would issue a receipt bearing the same details, after which the successful bidder would collect the asset, using a gate pass issued to the person entitled to collect the item. I 2.91. He explained that there was an officer stationed at the collection point to clear the vehicle and he did not know whether the Office of the Commissioner General was involved in this process. He stated that he did not have the deposit slip for the Pajero . I ABL 3753, although it bore his name. He co.uld not confirm that the receipt issued by the cashier had his name, as he had handed it over to A2. 2.92. When referred to the gate passes marked Exhibit 11 A and 11 B, he said that the former . I was for ABL 3735. He noted that the lot number was indicated as 29, whereas the investigator had told him earlier that the vehicle had no lo · ted that he · , ,,_1,.? JUDICIARYM B;f The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX 32 I 1~ Ji~ n c Ol'T onoc did not understand what a lot number was. According to the documents, the recommendation did not come from the Office of the Commissioner General. The documents bore stamps from various offices and originated from the Administration Department. They appeared to have been prepared by Dons C. Mawere, an Assistant in the Administration Department. He did not know who had approved the document, but it showed that it had been checked by Sergeant Zulu, with a comment that the item I had been purchased by a ZRA staff member. I 2.93. When cross-e1amined by counsel for the A2, PW5 stated that when he went to A2's office, he found the secretary, Pauline, present. However, the money was rnnllanded . I over to him in her presence, and apart from his testimony, he had no proof that the _money was given to him. He confirmed that he was not forced or threatened to make the deposit an'd that he went voluntarily. He stated that he had bought the Corolla before he made the Pajero deposit and that he paid for the Corolla through the cashier at ZRA. 2.94. For the Pajero payment in 2018, he deposited the money himself, whereas for the I Corolla purchase, he had asked a friend to make the deposit on his behalf. He had no I proof of having asked a friend. He could not recall who had handed him the gate pass ·Q for the Corolla. 2.95. _R egarding the Pajero ABL 3753, he confirmed that the transaction was made on 16th January 2018. He only came to learn that both vehicles in question had not been ! advertised when he was summoned by Internal Affairs. He did not know who had paid for ABL 3851 and told investigators that he had nothing to do with it. However, he accepted that he had paid for ABL 3753 and that, according to ZRA records, he was - the purchaser. 1:,l'UBLIC OF ZAMe; ~ JUDICIARY -1 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX I The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~ o 202sl~ 6 ocT 2.96. His supervising officer at the time was Mr. Sapi Makumba. His relationship with A2 was good, but he said that was not the reason he bypassed his supervisor to speak directly to A2. He explained that he did not take the matter to his supervisor because he believed the supei;visor was already aware of it, and he had seen A2 on several . I occasions. He did not inform his supervisor that A2 had sent him to deposit the money. ' 2.97. PW6 was Benjamin Chooba an administrative clerk and occupational health and safety Officer at ZRA recounted that in 2018, he was called by A2 who sent him to ' ' 0 deposit money for the purchase of a Mitsubishi Pajero with registration number ABF 8339 ahd a sum of K9,000.00 was given to him. He was given a piece of paper I : containing banking details by A2 in his office. ~e proceeded to ZANACO to peposit the money and after depositing, he took the deposit slip to A2. 2.98. On another occasion, he was called via mobile phone by A2 to see Mr Mulozi for further instructions. When he went tb his office, Mr Mulozi gave him K50,000.00 and co .daiails a piece of paper to go and degosit in tb.e.ZAAZA~ACO accQ.unt. The monex_ was._wr a Toyota Hilux ALF 4655'. He deposited the money and returned the deposit slip to Mr Mulozi. 2.99. In 2022, he was summoned by the Internal Affairs and was interviewed over the purchase of the vehicles. They showed him a deposit slip (P12) dated 2oth December 2020 which bore his name, a slip from RATSA and a gate pass (P13) dated 9th November 2020. He was surprised to see the deposit slip and the gate pass because, ' accoidiFlg to him, being s~nt to deposit money was one of his duties as a general ' worker. ,After they shqwed him that the Toyota Hjlux had changed ownership to Heart of Mercy, an NGO, they asked him if he was inv.olved in any change of ownership of I ' I I . the vehicle or any other among the ones he had paid for, as he was sent to deposit for . . ' three vehicles. He could not rememb~r the details of the other vehicle but he deposited K30,000.00 he got from A2 for three vehicles. A2 was the head of · . nt. t:,1'1.Jl3LIC F ZAM8t,4 \l, JUDICIARY The People v Kingsley Chanda and Ca//istus Kaoma MAGISTRATE COURT ~~34 2.100. Under cross-examination by counsel for A1 , he stated that Mr Mulozi was the manager administration in 2020 and he did not know the role he played in the disposal of ZRA obsolete property. He gave him K55,000.00 to deposit and he did not have the piece I ' , of paper with bank details. After depositing and before being summoned, by Internal Affairs, he did not deal with the issue to do with the K55,000.00. He came to learn about thi6 vehicle registration numbers when he was called by Internal Aff~irs and the I • numbers were introduced to him by Internal Affairs. i 2.101. ,Under cross-examination by counsel for A2, he stated that he was given K9,000.00 by CJ -- ' ··------- ' . A2 to gq and deposit and they were just the two of them. Other than his story_,Jie_did_ . , I not have proof that he gave him the money and for the depositiD.~L Mr Mulozi gave him K55,000.00 and not A2. The K55,000.00 was for the purchase of Al E_4f35fu31'.l~--i:l@- 1: I gave the deposit slips to Mr Mulozi and not A2 for the K55,000.00. He paid for three vehicles and paid another K30,000.00 which was given to him by A2 but he dirl not have proof that he gave him the money. 2.102. At Internal Affairs, he was asked if he bought any vehicles and he was shown three deposit slips. The person who interviewed him told him that he had bought three 'i I I : vehicles and one had changed ownership. He did not know the whereabouts of the . . ' three vehicles and all the vehicles were in his name. The registration numbers for the other two vehicles were ABF 8339, a Mitsubishi Pajero, and ALF 4655, a Toyota Hilux . . I . He coul? not recall the other one. He was also told that they were being µsed to buy . I vehicles but he did not tell them who was using him. 2.103. When referred to P12, he stated that it was the deposit slip for the money he was given : . I by A2 and it was not for the money he paid for the Pajero or ALF 4655. The K30,000.00 I' i . was for a vehicle whose registration :number he could not recalLJu.1ihe_could_r:ecall • ALF 4655. He was not aware that Mr Mulozi never mentioned that he gave him : ; i,_?IJBLIC OF ZAMei K30,000.00. ,>; JUDICIARY :.q · MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX I The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 35 ~j 0 6 OCT ?0?~~ 2.104. PW? was Tamara Edna Mwale, an Inspector of Taxes at ZRA. She recounted that between October and December 2017, she received a phone call from A2 who asked I . if she had appl_ied for any of the vehicles that were being auctioned to ZRA members of staff. She told him that she had not applied because she did not have the bapacity to do so. A2 then asked if she could help him purchase one of the vehicles on the lot. , I He explained that he was not buying the vehicle for himself but for A1 , who was also buying for Patriotic Front Party mobilisation. She was hesitant but A2 assured her that she would not be involved in the documentation or purchase, and that her name would I . () onl~ be used. That was1the last time she heard about the matter. i 2.105. In January 2022, she was called by Internal Affairs who informed her that they were in I possession of a receipt bearing her full name and showing an amount of K17,000.00 for the purchase of a Mitsubishi Pajero, registration number ABL 2465. She was que_stioned about how she purchased the vehicle and its whereabouts. She looked at the receipt and told them that she did not know anything about the purchase, did not ' ' buy the vehicle, did not know its whereabouts, and did not know the procedure for ' purchasing a vehicle at ZRA. When asked how her name came to be on the receipt, I she remembered that about five years earlier she had been approached by A2. Internal Q Affairs wanted her to gi&e a statement, and she was later called by the Zambia Police where she gave the same account. She requested a copy of the receipt (1D14), which was printed out for her on 30th May 2024 so she could keep it for court. : ' ' I 2.106. Under cross-examination by counsel for A1 , she stated that she received the call from ' A2 i,n the last quarter of 2017. She did not call A1 to confirm, and she never saw A1 ' ' ! I with the vehicle. 2.107. Under cross-examination by counsel for A2, she stated that she had·not spoken to A2 I , since 2017 and had rejected the offer to use her name for purchasing the vehicle. She I I : did not know who had used her name to purchase th l'.. M uld 'not say I ,>.'c.l' JUDICIARY 814 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Cal list us Kaoma MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX 36 : ! whether it was A1 . Her evidence was that her name was used by unknown people to purchase the vehicle. She was surprised when Internal Affairs summoned her and did not take any act' ion afterwards. She did not see A2 at the time because he was no ' longer working at ZRA, and she did not have his contact. She recalled her discussion with A2 five years before Internal Affairs contacted her, and the only connection she I • ' could makJ between the interview and that discussion was the conversation itself. I Apart from that suspicion, she had no other evidence linking A2 to the transaction. Internal Affairs did not tell her that the payment was made by A2 or that they suspected him. She had no evidence to show that A2 paid for the vehicle. I 2.108. PW8 was ALEX KABWIKU, an administrative officer at ZRA. He recounted that on 26th February 2019, M_r Mulozi called him to his office and told him that there was a vehicle that A2 wanted to purchase and th~t he wanted him to purchase it on A2's ' , I ' ' behalf. He expressed reservations because it wa,s not one of the vehicles indicated for I I disposal. Mr Mulozi assured him that the purchase was known even to A1 's office. After being told that the two were aware, he felt compelled to comply. Mr Mulozi then ' I • gave him a slip with details of the vehicle, a Nissan Caravan ABP 6406,..JJnd the amount of K25,000.00. He instructed him to deposit the money in a ZRA ZANACO account, obtain a receipt (P15) from ZRA Finance, apd thereafter take it to him. He was also told that he should not worry about change of ownership as A2 would handle it because the vehicle would be given to the Patriotic Fr ant. He followed these I ' instructions and thereafter had no interaction with the vehicle. I 2.109. The issue resurfaced when he was recalled by Internal Affairs in a year he could not I I recall, for questioning on the disposal of the vehicle. He explained what transpired and gave a statement. He was further questioned by the joint investigations team. 2.110. He stated that he had a professional working relationship with A2, who was the head I I I ' of his department, and had no interaction with A1 , the Co al. ~ ~ . 1 ' ~ JUDICIARY The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~- MAGISTRATE COll_RT r,ofJPLEX 37 7.- I ' 2.111. Under cross-examination by counsel for A1 , he stated that he had no interaction with A1 and never saw him with the vehicle. He did hot have any document to show that the vehicle was paid for by someone else other than himself or that he was acting on ' behalf of Mr Mulozi. At the time, he was ah estates officer and never interacted with the accused to confirm, after being told that they were aware. He did not confirm with anybody regarding the vehicle or the fact that it was being purchased for the Patriotic Front. He acknowledged that he knew the procedure for purchasing vehicles but wanted the record to show that he purchased. the vehicle even though it was not advertised. i 2.112. Under cross-examination by counsel for A2, he stated that Mr Mulozi called him and -t-o-ld- -h-im-- -th-a-t- .-A-2 wanted to purchase a vehicle. He had a professional working relationship with A2 and did not confirm with him if what Mr Mulozi told him was true. He did not know whe/her Mr Mulozi lied to him. He paid for the vehicle himself and had ' never seen the vehicle with A2. When referred to the receipt, he confirmed that it was the one he paid against and that it was dated 6th June 2024, signed by Nyemba Y. He could not see a signature on it and it had no ZRA stamp. When referred to a receipt in the State's bundle of documents in the name of Mulopa Kaunda dated 17th November u 2020, he stated that it was a ZRA receipt and was signed and stamped with two I stamps for the cashier and security. His own receipt had no signature, stamp, or logo. II •• - He confirmed that the receipt was genuine based on the date and details when I compared to the othElr receipt. He received the receipt from ZRA Finance, given to him , I by the cashier. He gave the receipt to Mr Mulozi and did not keep it in his possession. He did not receive it from Mr Mulozi. When it was suggested that the receipt was not I I genuine, he did not comment. : i 2.113. PW9 was BEVIOUS CHIBALE, aged 29, a Customer and Examining Officer at ZRA, residing at 149 ZRA Chirundu Compound. the recounte RA in 2017. 12-E: "181. JUDICIARY "l The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma MAG/STRATE COURT COMPLEX I ~li+ I --~7 ~ 38 ' n ,.. ""' In 2019, during her duties, she received a phone call from the former Commissioner General, Mr. Kingsley Chanda. He introduced himself and asked for her details, including her staff number and NRC. He mentioned that her details were to be used to purchase a motor vehicle. After that, the call ended, and she had no further information at that time. 2.114. In January 2022, she received a call from Internal Affairs ZRA, whp gave her a date for an interview. It was only during that interview that Internal Affairs showed her a ZRA general receipt bearing her name, for K50,000.00 and a motor vehicle, a Toyota () ~ilux ALC 9120, dated 18th December 2019. She had no knowledge of the motor vehicle purchase prior to that interview. 2.115. She recalled that during her duties in 2019, she was not involved in the purchase but was only asked to submit her details. She contacted a colleague, Bernard Kabwe, to verify if he had been interviewed by internal Affairs. He had not, so he made a phone I . call to the former Commissioner General, who then guided them on how to respond during the interviews. He advised th~m that the case being questioned was not theirs, that they should indicate the vehicle' was purchased by employees of ZRA, and that ' they could mention it as a business opportunity. She followed this guidance and gave ·O I her statement to Internal Affairs, stating that she did not personally pay for the vehicle, that she submitted her details, and that she knew nothing further about the purchase. i 2.116. Later, she was called by the JIT regarding the same vehicle. Upon reflection, she realized that her previous statement to Internal Affairs cqntairied inaccuracies, particularly the claim that she purchased the vehicle as a business opportunity and earned a commission. She clarified to JIT that her only involvement was submitting her details in response to the Commissioner General's call. She had no knowledge of the type of motor vehicle purchased, the amount spent, the date, the colour, or any E!'-fru\lt~~d\f other details. She retracted her earlier statement and gav :~¼s,-'I 1 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX l The People v Kingsley Chanda and Ca//istus Kaoma """' / <<'.\ t!iiiii:1' /) ~ "'"" -- ,,,,,,.,._ .¥ ···-=· 2.118. The receipt she was shown during the Internal Affairs interview, marked Exhibit P16, bore her name, the amount of K50,000.00, and the vehicle details of Toyota Hilux ALC 9120, dated 18th December 2019. She was shocked upon seeing the receipt, as she had no prior knowledge of these details before Internal Affairs provided them. . . I 2.119. When cross-examined by counsel for A1 , PW9 stated that she was employed by the Zambia Revenue Authority in 2017. From the time she joined, she did not know who the Director of Administration was. Her first posting was at the Mobile Compliance Unit at headquarters, wr\ere she worked for a period she could not recall, and in 2018 she 0 ' was transferred to Kenneth Kaunda International Airport. She admitted that she did not know the procedure for the disposal of obsolete vehicles at ZRA. 2.120. She explained that by "illegal purchase," she meant that when she went to Internal Affairs, they explained to her that the vehicle in her name was purchased without following the proper procedure for employee vehicle auctions. Since she did not know ' the disposal procedure, she relied on Internal Affairs to explain what transpired. She I noted that the gene~al ZRA receipt (Exhibit P16) was in her name and did not indicate that the vehicle was purchased by A1 . The receipt showed payment in cash, but it did not specify that it was cash paid by A1 . Other than her name, the document bore no other identifying information. ' 2.121. PW9 confirmed that she gave a statement to Internal Affairs, indicating her full name and that. she was 27 years old at the time. She told them she paid for a Toyota Hilux ALC 9120 and that a business client, Obert Malambo, had called her, expressing ' interest in purchasing a vehicle from. ZRA. She also stated that Mr. Malambo had asked her to help purchase one of the vehicles, which she agreed to, seeing it as a business opportunity for a commission. She further noted that after giving this statement, she was notrecommend_ed for suspension, but sh · 2022 . . ~ ~ · JUDICIARY "' following her Internal Affairs statement. MIAG ISTRATE COURT COMPLEX 20;~1~ ~ O6 OCT The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaofl/a 2.122. When referred to an unmarked investigation report from Internal Affairs, she staled that the report recommended disciplinary action against her for dishonest conduct and corruption for facilitating the purchase of a vehicle to a non-ZRA employee. She explained that she had not mentioned her dismissal in her testimony. I 2.123. She clarified that she had received a call from A1 , though she did not know the number used. She was alone when she received the call, which she described as unusual. She informed Bernard Kabwe, her workmate and nephew to A1 , about the call. She I explained that Bernard was also her boyfriend at the time, and the call from A1 was C) unrelated to the vehicle purchase; she did not implicate A1 because of personal matters. The conference call she described occurred while she was giving her statement to Internal Affairs, and although she had no proof, she insisted the call took place. She emphasised that she told the truth to the Joint Investigations Team and the disciplinary committee, and she was reinstated. She denied fabricating the story to ' implicate A1 in order to be reinstated. 2.124. When cross-examined by counsel for A2, PW9 stated that after initially providing an inaccurate statement, she returned to Internal Affairs and gave a correct written statement, though she had not produced it in court. She could not recall the names of () the two Internal Affairs officers who interviewed her. She did not inform A1 after her I interview, even after being shown the receipt. She explained that it was unusual to be ' told about the receipt and transaction. She checked with Internal Affairs to clarify what had happened and reiterated that she did not purchase the vehicle, did not know who I paid for it, and could not determine if there was a connection between the receipt and A1. 2.125. Regarding Exhibit P16, she confirmed that it was a ZRA receipt in her name for K50,000.00 and the Toyota Hilux ALC 9120. She noted that the words "sale of ALC g',11ilLIC OF ZA, ,,, h .:::9.'...'.12:..::0:_". ::_w:::-er~e...'..'n.:::.ol'...'.o~n:...:t~he:'..cr~e~ce:'.'.lipt'..'.tLw, '.!!h~ic~w~a~s...:.n"='.e'.-"-ith"'e-'-'rs """ig~,n""e""-'-'.r.,, aif!f'':i't'ro c I I AR v'"'c14 I MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX ""74.l-. · The People v Kingsley Chanda and Cal/istus Kaoma -,..,. j IJM.t n /: n!"T OMr £~ 2.126. PW10 Allen Simpokolwe, a driver, recounted that in 2017 to 2018 he was working for Mr Derrick Mpundu at Wanishi Lodge as a driver. Between March 2017 and April 2017, Mr Mpundu gave him documents to go and collect vehicles from the Zambia i Revenue Authority yard. He was given gate passes and instructed to see the police officer when he reached the yard, presenting the gate passes to be given a vehicle and sign in the book. When he went there, he found that all the vehicles on the documents were present. Mr Mpundu arranged a track which towed the vehicles to his farm, and he remained at the Zambia Revenue Authority yard. The vehicles collected were four, three Mitsubishi Pajeros and one Toyota Hilux. He could not recall the registration numbers of the vehicles. 2.127. After two months, he wa_s sent to deliver something at the farm and he found that the . vehicles were branded PF and were given to carders. He identified the vehicles by their number plates, although he could not recall them at the time of testimony due to the passage of time. He identified the Mitsubishi Pajero, exhibits P17 and P19. 2.128. Under cross examination, he recounted that he worked for Mr Mpundu for two years and he did not have a garage but a yard at his farm. He was given documents to go to ZRA which he returned to the owner after collecting the vehicles. The documents C) were written "Zambia Revenue Authority" and had a logo for the authority. The documents had number plates for the vehicles being collected, but he could not recall the number plates. The vehicles were towed to Mr Mpundu's farm. Apart from the day they were towed to the farm, he did not see them elsewhere. The scene visit was not at Mr Mpundu's farm but at the Drug Enforcement Commission headquarters. He had not told the court that he had gone to the Drug Enforcement Commission to see the vehicles, but he was told by Mr Mainza that the vehicles were there. He went to see them two days before ana did not tell Mr Mainza that those were the vehicles. 1:.l'U6LIC OF Z41vte I'- JUDICIARY -1 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Ca/listus Kaoma MAGISTRATE COURT r.oM - P - LE , X 2 . 2.129. When cross examined by counsel for A2, he stated that the vehicles were towed. He was not the one who drove the tow truck but was merely a driver assigned to the task. The last time he saw the vehicles they were branded PF. Notwithstanding that he could not recall the number plates and the fact that there were many Pajeros, he was confident they were the same vehicles because he had seen them and the bumpers were painted. He did not know the number of Pajeros branded PF but maintained that those were the vehicles. He did not know who branded the vehicles; they were already branded when he found them in March 2017. He did not know when or how the vehicles were bought from ZRA or if PF bought them. He was not a PF member but had been a member between 2018 and 2020. He left the party after being given a position at a church. 2.130. He further stated that he left work with Mr Mpundu after he was slapped; he could not recall the exact day, but ii was in May 2018, and he walked away the same day. He was angry with him and remained so. When he went to collect the vehicles, he reported to the police officer g'uarding the yard, who authorised him to collect them. They did not talk to officers frcim ZRA. When they arrived, he presented the gate pass, which he later returned to Mr Mpundu. Cv j 2.131. He last saw the vehicles in May 2018 and was later summoned by the ZRA Internal I Affairs Unit, who wanted to know how the vehicles moved from the ZRA yard. He told them that he collected them from a police officer and was not told that what he did was wrong. Internal Affairs asked where the vehicles were taken, and he stated they were taken to Mr Mpundui They also asked for the number of vehicles and the number plates, but he did not provide them because they showed him a document with the number plates. He had no evidence that the number plates Internal Affairs showed were the ones he identified. He never worked with the accused in dealing with the vehicles. E.l'\JSLIC OF Z4Me1. I'- JUDICIARY -'1 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma I 14~3 _,z;:, n. ___ 2.132. PW11 Emily Banda, a Tax Consultant at ZRA, recounted tha!A2 passed through her home in Meanwood and mentioned that he had bought her a vehicle, a Mitsubishi Pajero with registration number ABK 6092. She saw the receipt, which was in her name, but she did not know in whose name it was actually purchased. She had only seen the receipt recently. She could not manage to maintain the vehicle, so A2 said he would sell it and give her the money. He later told her that the vehicle was sold and gave her cash. She identified the receipt dated 19th January 2018, marked Exhibit P20. () 2.133. Under cross-examination by counsel for A1 , she stated that she started working for the Authority in 2017 and was receiving a salary and an income, the amount of which she did not disclose. She confirmed that she gave a statement to the police and that the information she provided was true, though she could not recall all details due to the passage of time. When referred to an unmarked document, she stated that ii was her statement to the police. She told the police that she had participated twice in an internal tender and signed to confirm that what she stated was true. 2.134. She recounted that she deposited K12,000.00 at Waterfalls and was given a deposit slip. She did not take the deposit slip to the cashier and did not keep it. She printed a copy later in relation to the K12,000.00 deposit. She was conversant with the procedures for buying obsolete items from the authority, which she became aware of when she became a permanent employee. She knew Mr Mulozi but did not know that advertising assets for sale was his task and she had not seen any of his adverts. She understood that it was the role of the procurement department to advertise, but she did not know the person in procurement responsible for advertising obsolete property at ZRA. 2.135. She did not personally pay for the vehicle; the K12,000.00 was for vehicle ABK 6092. The receipt was issued in her name, not the purchaser's, a~,tl/~. ,>: JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE CO~B.T r()M7PLEX,A4The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma """' I . ~- 2. 13 . came toTiei'nome In Meanwooi:! Ndeke Phase 1 alone. She could 1 house number or the exact date. She did not explain how A2 knew I whether he had been there previously. She did not invite him; the visit 1 and not work-related. 2.137. W~§§rlce'~e-ww~rl§q! iw,w~q19gl ~8f-~!'~et@J€ J~@/1i%&WI\ ~rl'~~ning a Friday t!PJ §tl 11W Yg1w§UmJil%'B t~ z~gl_i3(?, '&%t8K@lajru,i ~ Gf f& ~i§I-. ns!i@lleilif Ynot have any Rf~IIY~§~~ffllt ,l'lQl~§ve~~rlfwec\¼bA@y,ha/flf~~fr\J§~eta~f was present. iW,{J<WJUiW ntt~4fiie~~~~ie¼§B!l(Jfil@,t iPJt>fl~§/; ir'l'29~~93~fe/RPfhelpolice that A2 ~e:Jkj,,-rw~ 2;090!001%hr¥ sW:W~FlPtoVB@p&sti~lififur !¥1e ipWtti1J§§?of~f'le vehicle. She WIIB-f'-&17@@tvti?~ qmk3tA@f(10fcli\ll§'§rqJJ@sdi427§\i@08ill!Yl~ fr/JoM9rlt1e police that %i11t?h1liPniOOaRg,Ji9gi§~§sWe§ ~\ill /flen'l:i99n3R8/JliMme instead of his. :e.~0%. ~car11~r@EJ~F™rl1G fr/Jf~@ailWb~N~t/='WadE,e~ %'1'&%i'19~c~1J,hot recall the ' ~U~'ll~ ili~i:!h&/l§ffaorroomotg~ d\~011@t,~~~lcj1W~i~ lmel'fvher home or ~,f\@fl%r ~@Eri§§RiE!~@fel pR..,8-vil'LI§W @'fll8m@~iA~~EPRlkW tft%Bvllii1Pwas personal i?Jtld'ni?t ~tv6Fl?-f-e!§~1€ ~alified, but she clarified that this' was not correct; r she did not qualify was true. She admitted that the statement that she qu 2.137. When cross-examined by counsel for A2, she stated that she did not receive an offer lie, but emphasised that she was not standing in court as a liar. to qualify to purchase the vehicle. She explained that r,he did not qualify because the process was conducted online and she did not have~ffitllgcess~~t~fts. She was /<.",.-.... 11v11r-it.i..t-,'r not familiar with the ZRA Policy on Asset Disposal; indu1;1i~~;ff1e,:Gode\{nd procedure, /1 i1~,~ .t;,:ll~.,.;:...-... -- I The Peo~na K6'/d nof1&8~/ffia1aws~~J<eifiWa who quf \o -1P'({ti3tppt~u21s a temporary employee, she was not certain of the rules and\t~~~\!f311,![!1ftl~l.:9R)N,i;l?ther the policy discriminated, stating she was still learning aboutft>-~~~~o~.?:.::.~J 2.138. She confirmed that A2 purchased the vehicle for her by giving her K12,000.00 to dQ so. She stated that there was nothing wrong with purchasing the vehicle in that , manner. She acknowledged that in her statement to the police she had claimed she put in a tender and qualified, but she clarified that this was not correct; Iler story that _ she did not qualify was true. She admitted that the statement that she qualified was a lre;,idte'ilimp~d1iliatES \lfl:l!Ntimrpl.lral<s1ilir,_g::Jh e::oodl@l51 tot liec.a II men tio that he gave her the K12,00Q.OO, but he did $ive it to ~.!.:.-9h~Ql£! .,.-.:; i'i)_l.lC OF '-'<M&, ~ document showing that A2 gav.e her the mo~ey'.}'.t~~~~~~~jt~oif~"/~;i.EX. iii~~~ 101t;~~ rl~ The Pea~~? ~~i49re\,~g,ig~\/Mt~~te, but ~ol~,,Aie 45 ,.,....,,,,,.. l-.~~ 1/Af"\ r.r.r. ,..,,.,. ' ' 2.139. She explained that when A2 gave her K12,000.00, she did not tell him that she did not qualify because it came as an instruction from him. He instructed her only to deposit the money, stating that the purpose was for the purchase of motor vehicle ABK 6092. She further explained that the conversation began while they were discussing the disposal of vehicles by ZRA. She was invited to his office, and the reason she benefited from the vehicle was that they were in a personal relationship. She acknowledged that she found the vehicle expensive to maintain, and A2 sold ii and handed over the proceeds to her. From th~ initial K12,000.00, she received C) ' K35,000.00. 2.140. She confirmed that she had recently requested Hie receipt from ZRA to provide a copy to the NPA. The receipt was intended to prove that she purchased the vehicle. She did not inform anyone that the receipt was wrong or that she did not qualify to buy the vehicle. The receipt's narration simply stated the purchase of a vehicle and not ABK ~ 6092. She brought the receipt to court to demonstrate that it related to the vehicle purchase. Although the receipt was dated 19th January 2018, she collected it in June of the year of her testimony at the instruction of the NPA. She stated that she was not aware of any wrongdoing by A2 at ZRA. 2.142. PW12 Emanuel Mayo, a security supervisor at the Authority, testified that his duties included safeguarding property, maintaining law and order, and ensuring that assets were properly removed after an auction sale. He explained that there was a laid-down proce,dure in which he played a critical role in the manner items were released. When items,were sold via auction, a gate pass was used, and ii had three parts, each to be ' filled in by different people. The first part was to be completed by the Manager Administration or anyone authorised by that office; the second part by the Director Administration or an authorised officer from that office; and the last part by the security officers. Considering this laid-down procedure, he came in as the last person on the 1:,l"UBLIC OF 2:A.Ma \'- JUDICIARY The People v Kingsley Chanda and Ca//istus Kaoma MAGISTRATE CO!BT r11M'P lEX 46 ..,... -·- -----------·-·"--·--c---------= list of approvals. His role was to ensure that the first part was properly completed by authorised officers. 2.143. He stated that in the first part, he expected to see the name of the buyer, details of their motor vehicle (make, registration number, and name from RASTA), the name of the officer who generated the gate pass, the date, and the position of that officer. The second part was to be completed with a date stamp and the signature of the Director Administration before he could proceed with his part. Once he confirmed that the first and second parts were complete, he would put his date stamp and then give instructions to his subordinates to proceed with the release of the property. 2.144. With regard to the matter at hand, he explained that it concerned items sold under internal tender, which were strictly for members of staff. Therefore, he expected the buyer's name to appear on the document, and if he did not know the name, he would check on the internal mail list. The Authority had an integrated mail system where, upon entering a name, the system would confirm if the person was an employee, regardless of their place of work. 2.145. On 18th September 2018, while on duty at around 16:30 hours, he received a phone () call from Inspector Collins Hamweemba, a police officer in charge of a team of nine officers providing security at the Authority's enforcement office, off Kafue Road in Makeni, where the vehicles in question were parked. The officer informed him that he was in possession of a gate pass without a date stamp from the security office. PW12 instructed the officer to advise the person in possession of the gate pass to come to head office for verification and authorisation, though he could not recall the name of that person. 2.146. A few minutes later, one of his subordinates, Nkonda Tacitious, came to his office with the gate pass, which was produced as exhibit P21. it, he noted that 1::.1>1.l 81,i <;>: !UDICIARY MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX I The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma \ r-:A,,.' 47 -~·' n ~ C10T ~Ml: \(;fL-t-,,'\I\ the first part was completed but lacked the name of the officer who generated it and had no date stamp from the Manager Administration. The second part bore what appeared to be the signature of the Director Administration, A2, togElther with that office's date stamp. The document looked unusual because it listed six different motor vehicles under one buyer's name. I : . 2.147. Upon seeing this, he felt there was an irregularity because, according to the internal advert for the tender, staff were restricted from buying more than one vehicle. He 0 referred the matter to his immediate supervisor, the Chief Security Officer, Mr. Fred Bwalya. His supervisor instructed him to proceed with the release of the vehicles, stating that the Director Administration was the overall authority in the department and that, since the document bore that office's authorisation, it would be prudent to comply. I . 2.147. The gate pass in question listed six vehicles: one Toyota Hilux, four Mitsubishi Pajeros, and one Nissan van. It had a signature similar to that of A2, a date stamp dated 18th September 2018, and the buyer's name as "Mpundu." PW12 authentic.ated the pass and :gave instructions for the vehicles to be released accordingly. 2.148. When cross examined by counsel for A1 , he stated that he understood the documents 0 they use during their duties and the gate pass is one of them. It was not the first time he was handling a gate pass, and it will not always have the buyer's ncime. It is there to show that the person named has been authorised to exit ZRA with the item. It is not correct that a person named can be authorised to exit with more than one item. 2.149. When referred to P21, he stated that the document listsfive items and it does allow the listing of more than one item. He had released m~re than one item on one gate pass before. It did not have the name Mpundu as the buyer, but he WpS the person authorised to exit ZRA with the vehicles. He did not have the advert restricting staff to ,>,f.l'U6LIC OF <-4,t.f JUDICIARY -1 MAGISTRATE ~QU_RT r:r)MPLEX 48 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma .~ ... I r _ o _ _ one vehicle, but it was issued by Mr Mulozi, and he was the only one issuing adverts for the sale of obsolete motor vehicles. I 2.150. He did not know a McAllen Simpokolwe and it could be difficult for him to confirm that he came across the name in the course of his duties. His supervisor did not issue instructions in writing o~ endorse them on the document. He did not inscribe on the document that he was instructed to release the vehicles, and there was nothing to show that he was the one who stamped the document. There was no re:3son why he did not sign it., I 2.151. He was called by Collins Hamweemba from the ZRA yard, and he told him that there bwas a gate pass which did not bear anything from the security office. He did not tell him who the bearer was. He instructed the police officers at the yard to release the vehicles. 2.152. When cross examined by counsel for A2, he stated that he was a Security Supervisor supervising security at ZRA, and he was to ensure that all ZRA property is secure. It would be his fault if property left ZRA in breach of security. He was still in employment because he had performed his duties very well, and that extended to the matter before court. 2.153. He was present during the conversation between the chief security officer and A2, but he did not hear. He did not know whether A2 said that to the chief security officer. He did not have the guidelines which say that an employee is entitled to purchase one vehicle. 2.154. He had not received any report of theft from the time the vehicles left ZRA. The gate pass was strange because the first part did not reflect the name of a ZRA employee. From the gate pass, he could not tell if the vehicles left Z M the position e,_,, ~I' x>: JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX j(i) W25 ~\ 0 6 OCT The People v Kingsley Chanda and Ca/listus Kaoma. 49 that since it did not have a date stamp, then the vehicles did not leave ZRA, because the vehicles actually left. 2.155. To his knowledge, the vehicles were relea,sed by Collins Hamwef)mba and Inspector Lizazi. He would not know why the officers did not sign. He was not seeing the gate pass for1the first time, and he was not told .that he was speaking tq it 2.156. He testified that both documents could notbe correct if one of thern did not contain all the nec~ssary details. In his view, 1D13 was the correct document while 1D21 was irregular. He stated that no item could be released from ZRA using an irregular gate pass. He disagreed with the suggestion that, because the gate pass was irregular, the ' vehicles in question never left ZRA. He clarified that it was not his rividence that items I could be released using both an irregular and a regular gate pas~. His position was that a gate pass must be regular in order to be used for the release of any item from ZRA. 2.157. PW13, Fred Bwalya, aged 46 years, a Chief Security Officer at ZRA, whose duties ' incl,uded maintaining law and order within ZRA premises, in'.(estigating security breaches, and safeguarding the authority's assets. He explained that vehicles sold in I ' i I auction are only sold to members of staff. 'once a staff member purchases a vehicle, they are required to pay the reserve price, and upon payment, a gate pass is issued by the administration department The gate pass must clearly indicate the vehicle's details and be approved by the Director of Administration, who at the time was A2. 2.158. Mr. Bwalya stated that whe~ a person goes to collect the vehicle from the designated parking prea, they must present the gate pass to the officers on duty, who usually incl,ude ~ambia Police officers. Once satisfied that the details match the gate pass, the ' officers release the vehicle, and the person collecting it signs the r~gister. The officers are also required to sign the gate pass upon collection. E u rt , a single , I"-''-" lvre1. JUDICIARY 01 I . MAGISTRATE COUR?T CnOMP;LE~X ~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Cal/istus Kaoma os or.r 0 ~;1 J general gate pass is used for releases. For vehicles, the standard is that only one vehicle is sold to a member of staff, and the gate pass should reflect only that vehicle. In the case of furniture, the gate pass must indicate the number of items being removed and their destination. 2.159. On 18 September 2018, shortly before closing, his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Mayo, reported to him that there was a gate pass from the Director of Administration's office with irregularities in the number of vehicles listed for release. Upon examining the pass, Mr Bwalya confirmed that it listed six vehicles, four Mitsubishi Pajeros, one single-cab Toyota Hilux, and one Nissan Caravan minibus, exceeding the standard number allowed. The name on the pass was Derrick Mpundu, and upon checking the ZRA mailing system, Mr Bwalya established that Mpundu was not a member of staff. 2.160. He then consulted his supervisor, Mr. Mugala Martin, the Transport and Security Manager, for guidance. After reviewing the document, Mr. Mugala observed that it bore the signature of the Director, A2, and advised that the Director's authority overrode any concerns they. might have as subordinates. He instructed them to proceed with the release but to keep a copy in case of audit queries regarding the number of vehicles on one gate pass. Mr Bwalya then directed Mr. Mayo to release the vehicles. 2.161. He also testified that he did not know the current whereabouts of the vehicles. The gate pass in question bore the signature and date stamp of "Director Administration," which he recognised as A2's signature from his years of working with him. The document was kept in the security office, in a drawer in his office, and he had custody ; of it. He further noted that the officers who released the vehicles were supposed to sign the gate pass, but he did not know why they had not done so. The pass should also have borne the name of the person who brought the vehicle for collection. 1:.l'lll3LiC OF ZAMe1, . I'- JUDICIARY '1 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma I I.~ . "i'tf, Sl O - nn• ---- 2.162. When cross-examined by counsel for A1 , the witness stated that he recalled the statement he had given to the police officers. He confirmed that ZRA uses a general gate pass, which can allow more than one item to leave ZRA premises. He explained that there is no written rule limiting a gate pass to one vehicle, and the notion that a I gate ,pass should cover only one vehicle is based on an assumption rather than an official policy. He further stated that he was not conversant with the asset disposal procedure and could not say whether it allows the purchase o(more than one vehicle. 2.163. He cbnfirmed that ZRA disposes of its assets from offices across the country, and an officer may tender for an asset regardless of where they are based. In such cases, if an asset is located in another town, such as Nakonde, an officer may authorise another person to collect it on their behalf. He agreed that such an asset could be a motor vehicle and that the gate pass is a tool authorising someone to collect items from ZRA and take them out of the premises. 2.164. He stated that there was nothing wrong with Mr. Mpundu collecting the vehicles on I behalf of the officers who had bought them. He denied the suggestion that when Mr. I Moyo came to his office, he called someone unknown to Mr Moyo who authorised him to release the vehicles. He clarified that Mr. Moyo did not leave with the gate pass, as a copy of the document had been sent to the Makeni yard for the release of the vehicles, and he kept a photocopy of it himself. He acknowledged that he had not told . I the court how he came to be in possession of the original document. 2.165. He further stated that he had not seen his own entry in the Makeni register to confirm whether the vehicles were collected or not, but he had received confirmation from Mr. . I Moyo that they had indeed been collected. He said Mr. Moyo ~ad not told him that he did not go to the yard to release the vehicles. His conclusion that the vehicles were I collected was based solely on 'what Mr. Moyo had told him. He admitted there was no evidence to show that Mr. Mugala had authorised hi " r%e~l_,x{tf]' 1tfte~as-e of r-'~ _... ,· '·""" '. ~- . 1 1,,1,r.icr,eW.,.. ·0 EX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~ 52 the vehicles. The gate pass in question had a provision for comments, but no comment was recorded. 2.166. When cross-examined by counsel for A2, the witness stated that he had worked with Mr. Moyo since 2013 and regarded him as a competent security officer. He denied that Mr. Mayo ever heard him speak to A2, and equally denied being present when Mr. Mugala spoke to A2. He maintained that his view was that the gate pass in question, P21, was irregularly generated. As a trained security officer, he stressed that concerns i I about safeguarding ZRA property could not be overridden by instructions from any p~rson. Because P21 was irregular, they were under no obligation to use it, and if he had done so, it would have amounted to dereliction of duty on his part. 2.167. He explained that if any vehicles were released on the basis of th is gate pass, neither he nor Mr. Mugala were responsible. He and Mr. Mugala continued working in their positions because they had not been found wanting. He rejected the suggestion that their continued employment was due to the vehicles not having been released from ZRA, explaining instead that they had been released by police officers. He did not know the identity of the officer who released them, apart from what he had heard from Mr. Mayo. 2.168. He confirmed that one of the irregularities with P21 was that it carried more than one ' vehicle, although he clarified that this was more of a practice than a formal rule. He denied, meeting Mr. Mpundu, though he had met a member of his own staff who had come /o collect the vehicles, which he emphasised was not his responsibility. He stated that he did not receive any query over P21, nor any report that the vehicles had been stolen, but according to ZRA records, the proper!/ had indeed been lost. He ' acknowledged that there were occasions when a gate pass could cover more than one item, and that a motor vehicle could be categorised as such an item. He was not I I incompetent and would not obey any unlawful instruction. The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 2.169. PW14, Suzyo Musukwa Ngandu, a Consultant in Governance, Leadership and related fields, recounted that i,n April 2022 she was serving as Board Secretary at ZRA, a position she had held since joining the Authority in August 2016. Her responsibilities included ensuring that necessary board approvals were obtained for various i transactions, including the disposal of assets. She wa·s also responsible for the Internal Affairs Unit. 2.170. She explained that the Authority had an Asset Disposal Policy which required that any assets earmarked for disposal be presented to the board following a recommendation from the Asset Disposal Comr,ittee. A board paper would then be prepared listing the items recommended for disposal. Once the board granted approval, a board resolution would be prepared indicating the items and the approved method of disposal. During her tenure as Board_ Secretary, the approved method was by internal tender to staff. Following board approval, an internal advert would be circulated within the Authority inviting interested staff to bid for the advertised motor vehicles. The vehicles would be I offered to the highes,t bidder, who was given five days to make payment. If the highest bidder failed to pay, the vehicle would then be offered to the next highest bidder until tor it was sold. Assets disposal could include motor vehicles, furniture, and other items. 2.171. On 11th April 2022, she was summoned by the Joint Investigations Team to provide information regarding an investigation they were conducting. The investigation had been initiated by the Internal Affairs Unit following a whistleblower's report and centred on the disposal of ZRA-owned motor vehicles. The internal investigation aimed to I establish whether the disposal process had complied with laid-down procedures, covering the period 2017 to 2020. 2.172. She testified that for :2017, the board had approved the disposal of 29 vehicles, but 7 of these were not advertised for sale to staff. She recalled that these vehicles had been sold, but not through the recommended process. l'lJ6LIC OF ZAMei ~\:. .!UDICIARY '1 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma MAGISTRATE COURT ,'()MPLEX 5 F"'-~- -, 2.173. ln1Q18, the board approved 14 vehicles for sale, of which three were sold to non .m embers of staff. ~e of these individuals was Derek Mpundu, who did not pay for the vehicle and for whom no payment record could be faun_~_2.174. In 2019, the board approved the disposa_l of 8 vehicles. Although they were advertised, the investigation revealed that some staff members lis.ted ,as purchasers denied any knowledge of having bought the vehicles. Some employE?es further complained that • I . the then Administl]iloo-Maf1a@8F;--M~ad give'n t,hem funds to purchase the vehicles. 2.175. In 2020, the board approved the disposal of 20 vehicles. The investigation found that 3 of these were not advertised to staff and had been removed from the approved list. These vehicles ultimately ended up in the possession of Heart of Mercy and Bishop Alick Banda, with ownership being transferred to them.• i 2.176. She confirmed that she had signed the b9ard resolufon (P3). At the material time, the Director of Administration, who was r~sponsible for preparing board papers, was A2, while the Commissioner General was A1 . According to the Authority's disciplinary and grievance procedures, the failures i'dentified amounted to breaches of the laid- (J down procedures. ' : 2.177. When cross-examined by counsel for A1,, PW14 stated that she served as Board Secretary from 2016 to 2023. She did not know when the Asset Disposal Policy was approved by the board and could not reca,' 11 any revised policy being approved during her tenure. The policy she referred to in her evidence was one approved prior to her joining the Authority. She was not aware of any revision to' the policy between 2017 and 2018. I 2.178. She explained that the policy did not contain any provis' ion prohibitin a member of · . · 13LIC OF Z4 staff who purchased a vehicle from selling it to a non-m . l}rb~$.ltifc~6rrty alt ~-1MA GISTRATE COURT COMPLEX Im The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ! I a 6 ocr 2025 with the identification of obsolete vehicles up to the point when payment was made. Once payment was made, the purchaser acquired property in the vehicle and, as owner, could deal with it as they deemed fit. She confirmed that the policy did not state that a purchaser could not sell a vehicle they had acquired. I 2.179. She acknowledged that other assets apart from motor vehicles were advertised and that she did receive adverts for such assets, but she could not recall the author of the emails. She did not participate in the detailed aspects of the investigations. She clarified that she had not been told directly that Derick Mpundu had been given a motor vehicle but had read it in the investigation report, which she did not have with her. As far as she could recall, the report did not indicate who had given him the vehicle. It ' also did not state that he owned a garage where vehicles were repaired or that he had collect~d the vehicle on behalf of clients who had bought them from the Authority. She agreed ,that if Mr. Mpundu had collected the vehicle for a client for repair purposes, he would not be in breach of the policy. The policy did not require that the purchaser personally collect the vehicle. i 2.180. She further stated that in corporate governance, boards can ratify a resolution in ' certain circumstances. The whistleblower's complaint was that some motor vehicles () had been disposed of without following the laid-down procedure, specifically that certain vehicles had not been advertised in accordance with the policy. She confirmed that the responsibility for advertising lay with the Director of Administration, not the Officer Administration. She could not confirm whether there was an officer under the ' Administration Department specifically tasked with advertising. Her role was only as a recipient of the adverts for the sale of motor vehicles. 2.181. ,stated that, in the investigation report, she did not recall seeing any attached evidence showing that the two officers who claimed they were unaware of having purchased ea~~i~Fii~ yehicles had in fact received money to buy them. She co · ule MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma • "iiir5., j " , ~ ~ _ __ . _ j ~ .2 --- preventing a vehicle purchased by a member of staff from later ending up in the possession of Our Lady of Mercy or Bishop Alick Banda. 2.182. When cross-examined by counsel for A2, Ms Ngandu stated that during the period 2017 to 2020, she served as Board $ecretary and was familiar with board approvals but not the detailed procedures for asset disposal. She was aware of the charges the accused were facing but could not confirm that only the two individuals breached the I procedure. As the officer in charge of the Internal Affairs Unit, she explained that the ' unit investigated the matter and their investigations did not establish that only the two ac~used had breached procedure. 2.183. She clarified that the Legal Advisor to the Board at the time was the Director of Legal Se_rvices, and that her role extended beyond recording minutes. She ensured that any potential conflicts of interest were recorded, verified that the correct documents were before the board, and monitored compliance with previous resolutions, reporting back w~ere necessary. ' 2.184. She confirmed that 3 vehicles had been sold to non-members of staff, specifically Derek Mpundu, Heart of Mercy, and Bishop Alick Banda but she could not confirm wh_ether these individuals had actually paid for the vehicles. She explained that this information was discovered after the Internal Affairs Unit concluded its investigations. She added that board minutes would, not typically include the name of the purchaser I or the sale amount; instead, the minutes contained details such as the make, model, I registration number, and book value of the vehicles approved for disposal. 2.185. She distinguished between gate passes and receipts, noting that a gate pass merely confirmed that the Authority had authorised a particular asset to be removed from its ! premises. The gate pass could be used by anyone authorised by the purchaser. She l"-1;.PUBLIC OF Z4Me . JUDICIARY -'I The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX 57 -,,;,,- f I % stated that the investigations did not reveal gate passes in the names of Heart of Mercy or Bishop Alick Banda, 2.186. She further stated that during 2017 to 2020, no board meeting had raised the issue of vehicles being sold outside the proper procedure, and she could not confirm that all documentation for the sales was flawless. She recalled, however, that there had indeed been a breach of procedure at the point of sale. She explained that the procedure required ce'rtain steps, such' as issuing receipts for payments, though she did not have detailed knowledg~ of the' banking process. The report did not establish that all purchasers had receipts, and some vehicles were unaccounted for, though investigations did not indicate that any were stolen by the accused. I 2.187. Regarding the accused individually, the investigations did not establish that A1 had ' . failed to follow procedure. She noted that A2 had oversight responsibility for advertising the vehicles, and that this st1ep had not been properly followed, though she could not confirm whether he personally breached the prbcedure as she was not directly involved. She also noted that she worked with Mr. Mulozi but was not aware of any direct sales conducted through him and was not involved in those stages of the disposal process: She stated that certain aspects of the events had occurred without her knowledge in her capacity as Board Secretary. 2.188. PW15, Sizwan Luhana, an Assistant Manager at the Road Transport and Safety Agency (RA TSA), explained that his duties involved the registration of motor vehicles I ' and trailers in accordahce with the Road Traffic Act No. 11 of 2002, ensuring the safe custody of relevant documents., and licensing drivers. He described the registration process for motor vehicles, noting that it requires documents from the Zambia I Revenue Authority, includ,ing the Customs Clearance Certificate (CC), C20 ASYCUDA form, release order, arid payment receipt. At the agency level, a physical inspection is conducted with the police, and an Interpol check i 8: 4-t,Me JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ---, I ~ documentation records the vehicle's make, model, chassis number, and colour. Applicants also complete forms relating to Interpol checks and Revenue Authority . ' documentation. Once received, these documents are stored in a secure safe accessible only by authorised personnel via thumbprint or lockable key. I 2.189. He recounted that o,n 30th August 2924, he was visited by officers, among them Mr. Mulimba, in connection w.ith an investigation that had commenced in 2022. The officers presented documents listing 4 vehicles, which included information provided (~f by Mr. Banda, the former Chief Executive Officer, and another document listing 31 i vehicles provided by Engineer Alinani, Deputy Director of Safety. He was asked to determine the registered owners of these vehicles and sampled a few of them. 2.190. In September 2024,: PW15 visited th:e Drug Enforcement Commission to verify vehicles branded EGL. He confirmed the chassis numbers on these vehicles and ' . retrieved corresponding registration documentation to determine the registered owners. Further investigation revealed thJt some vehicles had changed ownership ' from the original registrant. PW15 produced seven documents, which were admitted . ! as exhibits P22 to P128. 2.191. He detailed the vehicles as follows: I , • Exhibit P?2: Mitsubishi Pajero, registered under the Zambia Revenue Authority, ' . which remained the current owner. I I • Exhibit P23: Toyota Hilux, registration number ABM 8166, initially owned by Zambia Revenue Authority, transferred to Matthews Mwila Manda on 3rd June 2019, and later to Vegeland Farm Limited on 13th December 2019. ' • Exhibit P24: Mitsubishi Pajero, registration number ABR 9284, initially and currently owned by Zambia :Revenue Authority. ' l'llsUC OF ZAMs, ~I,: JUDICIARY "l MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~t Of i OCT 2025 • Exhibit P25: Mitsubishi Pajero, registration number ABR 9683, initially and ' currently owned by Zambia Revenue Authority. • Exhibit P26: Toyota Hilux, registration number ALC 9123, initially and currently owned b' y Zambia Revenue Authority. • Exhibit P27: Toyota Hilux, registration number ALF 4655, initially owned by Zambia Revenue Authority, then Benjamin Chooba, and currently by Heart of Mercy. • Exhibit P28: Toyota Hilux, registration number ALF 7734, initially owned by Zambia Revenue Authority, then Mulopa on 21st May 2021, and subsequently transferred to Alick Banda on 22nd May 2021. 2.192. PW15 emphasised that vehicle ownership can change at any time, reflecting the I dynamic nature of registrations once transfers are properly recorded. 2.193. Under cros$-examination by counsel for A1 , PW15, stated that he relied on the Road ' I Transport and Safety Agency's electronic system, E-ZAMTIS, for vehicle registration ' records. He explained that Exhibits P27 and P28 related only to the documents submitted Jt first registration and did ~ot reflect subsequent transfers or changes of ownership frorh the first owner to second or third owners. He clarified that he was not instructed on which documents to bring or focus on when producing the exhibits. He further explained that the documents would normally show whether a transfer occurred as a sale or gift. For example, in P23, there were no documents evidencing a change . I of ownership from Mr. Matthews Mwila Manda to Vage Land Limited. 2.194. PW15 elabprated that, at the time of his review in August 2024, he did not have the original documents provided by the officers or any indication that the Zambia Revenue I . Authority had sold the vehicles. By "_sampling," he meant that he had previously reviewed other vehicles with Mr. Banda and was now retrieving the remaining records. He noted that the registration process requires the vehicle owner to sign an application for transfer of ownership, and that an Interpol confirmation is Z4 if that the . '2.1" I M. . ?- JUDICIARY ~/-1 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kao ma MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX 60 I vehicle is not stolen or involved in any illegality. If the transfer is a gift, it is accompanied by a letter and tax clearance. He confirmed that all necessary documents were present ' ' ' to effect the recorded changes, but he could not _recall who signed the transfers on ' . behalf of the Zambia' Revenue Autho1ity. He also noted that rep~rts indicated that vehicles ALF 4655 and ALF 7734 had been stolen, although ALF 7734 was not included in the indictment. · 2.195. When cross-examined by counsel for A2, PW15 stated that MIr.. Mweemba, an officer from the Zambia Police, first visited him on 30th August 2024: He could not recall the exact details of the conversation but st,ated that he,was asked for inforn;iation on the vehicles; registered owners and current ownership, He explained that he did not inquire into the reason for the request and was not told about the investigation's scope ' . i or the identities of the perso'ns under inyestigation. PW15 maintained that the records he reviewed were correct and ~a/id acc,ording to the agency's system. 2.196. PW16, Mulimba Donald, a police officer and arresting officer1in this matter recounted that on 24th May 2023 he took over the docket in this case from the retired officer, Mr. Mudend~. Upon reviewing the docket, he noted that the matter concerned the disposal 0 of motor vehicles by the ZRA and allegations that the accused had ~ot adhered to the Asset Disposal Policy: He learned that, between 2017 and 2020, thI e Asset Disposal I Committee had used an internal tender process, which meant that vie hicles were to be . ' I . . sold exclusively to ZRA staff. Vehicles were to be offered :to the highest bidders, ' payment was required through the ZRf bank acc?unt within five working days, and vehicles were to be 6ollected from the ZRA yard upon issuance of a gate pass. According to the policy, each gate pass was intended to authorise the removal of only I • .. -·-·-- o-ne vehicle. · 1 . 2.197. PW16 further explained that 7 vehicles were recovered in connection with the case. ' ' Two Mitsubishi Pajero's, branded with Patriotic Front Party s · 'O recovered · · • 1=.l'UBL , ZA1vte1. The People v Kingsley Chanda and Ca llis'.us Kao ma MA ~ G IS°tR J A U TE D C IC OU IA RT R C Y O MP,/JF ~ 1 ____ _;_,, __ from Mr. Edwin Mwendapole, a Patriotic Front Party cadre in the Makeni area. Two additional vehicles were recovered in Chipata from Mr. Andrew Lubusha, the then I ' , Patriotic Front Party Chairperson for Chipata District. A Toyota Hilux single cab, registration ABM 8166 (Exhibit P30), white in color, was seized from Mr. Joseph Moonde, who introduced himself as a manager at Vage Land: Farm Ltd. PW16 invJstigated further through PAC RA (Exhibit P29) and established that A1 was a . I director and shareholder of Vage Land, along with Mr. Kamanga ahd Ms. Kaonga, the wif~ of A1 . Another vehicle, a Toyota Hilux double cab, ALF 4655 (Exhibit P33), blue in color, was seized by. the Drug Enforcement Commission from Madam Phiri, a director at the Heart of Mercy. 2.198. He extended his investigations to RA TSA, where he obtained registration documents I and_ applications for the vehicles. He discovered that most of the vehicles had been i removed from the ZRA yard by non-ZRA staff. Specifically, six vehicles were recorded on a single gate pass in the name of Derick Mpundu. Some vehicles were collected from the yard by Allen Simpokolwe, a former colleague of Derick Mpundu, whil~ other ' I batches were collected by Mr. Mwamba Chisenga and Davis Mubanga, both of whom had previously worked with Derick Mpundu at a company called Star Watt.1PW16 rQ interviewed the named individuals to ascertain how they became involved with the ' vehicles, and Mr. Chisenga informed him that he had been approached by At 2.199. He further explained that through his interactions with multiple individuals, he discover~d that the ZRA Asset Disposal Policy and its proc~dures had been I abrogated. He learned th~t the purchasers of the vehicles were not the highest bidders and, in many instances, h?d not participated in any bidding process. Payments for the I vehicles were frequently made by others, including A2 and Mr. Mulozi, rather than by ' the purported buyers themselves. He also established that t did not l'l,€ JUDICIARYM S/4 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX ~~~~ The People v.Kingsley Chanda and Cal'listus Kaoma retain ownership of the vehicles after payment, as the vehicles ultimately ended up with non-ZRA staff. 2.200. He noted that approximately six vehicles, including Toyota Hilux ALC 9123, were disposed of without approval from the governing board. PW16 collaborated with Mr. Irvin Kapambwe from the Internal Affairs Unit to trace receipts, gate passes, and records of vehicle collection. He obtained receipts in the names of Bevious Chibale (Exhibit P16), Alex Kabwiku (P15), Moses Malembeka (P34), Emily Banda (P20), Tamara Mwale (P14), Benjamin Choba (P12), and Nalishebo Musipili (P10). He also collected gate passes in the names of Moses Malembeka (P11A and P118), Henjamin Choba, Nalishebo Musipili (P10), and Alex Kabwiku (P13) from the officer at the Makeni yard. 2.201. From the ZRA Makeni Yard Occurrence Book (Exhibit P35), he confirmed that vehicles were collected by non-ZRA employees. For example, Allen Simpokolwe collected a Nissan Tiida, ABV 5918, on 8th February 2018, and several Mitsubishi Pajeros and a Toyota Hilux between 10th and 16th January 2018. Davis Mubanga collected Mitsubishi Pajeros ABF 8339 and ABK 6092 on 10th and 27th January 2018. Chisenga 0 Manda also collected vehicles. PW16 confirmed with the ZRA Human Resource Officer that none of these individuals were ZRA employees. He further noted that the change of ownership documents (P9) were signed by Mr. Mug ala on behalf of ZRA. 2.202. Through these investigations and witness interactions, PW16 concluded that the ZRA Asset Disposal Policy had been violated. Vehicles were meant to be purchased by the highest bidding staff members through an internal lender process, but in this case, the buyers were not the highest bidders and were financially assisted by the accused. Ultimately, the vehicles were controlled by entities such as the Patriotic Front Party, Vage Land Farm Ltd, and Heart of Mercy, rather than the official purchasers. The ,,0eUC OF ZAMa,~ ~e JUDICIARY The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma MAGISTRATE COUB_T COM_l:1,r ........._ 63 _@ policy also required board approval for the disposal of vehicles, which was disregarded i in several instances. 2.203. He recalled an interaction with Bright Himuyamba from the Accounts Department, who explained that certain vehicles on a disposal list had not been approved by the board and were being queried for removal from the Asset Register. PW16 stated' that when I Mr. Himuyamba questioned this, he was summoned to the office of A1 , where A2 was also present, and they questioned him about the issue. Cl 2.204. PW1@_§Iso interacted with Mr. Mulozi, who informed him that before the disgosa!_ I process commenced, A2 approached him to ask how hP. ...c ouJd-8.SS.isLin-r.eserving certain motor vehicles to be given to the Patriotic Front. According to Mr. Mulozi, A1 was aware of this arrangement. Mr. Mulozi explained to him that under the internal tender method, outsiders could not directly purchase vehicles from ZRA, but could only buy them from staff members who had legitimately acquired them. 2.205. He further interacted with Ms. Nalishebo Musipili, who stated that A1 personally approached her at her home in Cha/ala and asked her to help him purchase a vehicle. She explained that because he was her superior, she could not refuse and proceeded 0 to pay for one vehicle. 2.206. During his investigations, PW16 also discovered that a Toyota Hilux, registration ABM 8166, which had been paid for by Mr. Teddy, a member of staff at the Authority, was registered in the name of Vage Land Farms Limited, a company where A1 was one of the directors and shareholders. 2.207. The witnesses in whose names the receipts, previously produced in evidence were I issued told PW16 that they merely received money to pay for the vehicles. They stated that they were contacted by Mr. Mulozi and A1 , who provided them with the funds and the account details for deposits. 'c-,>\.)6LIC OF ZAMet,4 ?: JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX I t.i: The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma O6 OCT 202-;-i~ 2.208. He also produced a gate pass (Exhibit P16) in the name of Derek Mpundu, prepared on 18th September 2018, which listed 6 vehicles, all Mitsubishi models, collected by Allen Simpokolwe and Davis Mubanga. From his investigations, he established that a total of 22 vehicles were collected from the yard, while otQers, according to security officers, were simply taken away without proper documentation. He was informed by Mr. Moya and Mr. Fred Bwalya that PF cadres forcibly collected certain vehicles. . . ' 2.209. PW16 explained that under the policy, each successful bidder was allowed to bid for only one vehicle. If a bidder successfully bid for two, two separate gate passes were required, each for one vehicle. However, in this case, gate passes con\ained multiple vehicles. 2.210. Based on these findings, he, concluded that both accused persons knowingly and willingly failed to follow established ZRA asset disposal procedures, which they were fully aware of. He therefore jointly charged them. 2.211. Both accused persons held managerial or senior positions at the Authority and, as such, bore the duty to ensure that all procedures in the disposal of assets were strictly complied with. 2.212. After concluding his investigations, he summoned the accused persons and interviewed them on the matter. They denied the allegations, but he nonetheless jointly charged them with the offence in question. 2.213. Under cross-examination by counsel for A1 , PW16 explained that the complaint in this matter was that vehicles had been disposed of without following the laid-down procedure in the Asset Disposal Policy of the Authority. This complaint had been made by the then Commissioner-General, Mr. Dingani Banda, although it was not made directly to him. The complaint itself did not name the specifi · dividuals alleged to have breached the policy. l"ueUC OF ZAMe1;,i ~€ JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE COURT CO_MPLEX I The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma t.fij 202sl(m O6 OCT _; 2.214-. When he took over the docket, investigaiicns were already undeiway. Among the first documents he found on the file was the policy in issue, along with gate passes, Zambia Revenue Authority receipts, motor vehicle schedules, board papers, memoranda, and advertisements. He also collected additional documents during his own investigations, including further gate passes and Occurrence Books. 2.215. He outlined that the investigation had four objectives: first, to determine what the policy stipulated regarding the disposal of obsolete motor vehicles; second, to identify who 0 was responsible for the disposal process; third, to establish whether the vehicles were disposed of using an irregular process; and fourth, to determine the identities of the persons who had failed to follow procedure and had disposed of the motor vehicles irregularly. 2.216. From his findings, he concluded that the 22 motor vehicles listed in the indictment had been disposed of irregularly, and that the accused persons were the ones who had failed to follow the procedure. He referred to Exhibit P1, the Asset Disposal Policy, which guides the individuals responsible for asset disposal, establishes an Asset Disposal Committee, and directs both the committee and other employees of the Authority in the proper disposal process. 2.217. PW16 confirmed that he recovered 7 vehicles in total during his investigations. Of these, only one had been recovered by the Drug Enforcement Commission; the rest had been recovered through his own efforts. 2.218. He explained that he did not investigate when the policy was created, nor was he aware that there had been any revisions to it. He also did not investigate when the Authority began disposing of the said property. However, he did investigate the disposal of the vehicles that were the subject of this offence, which occurred between 2017 and 2020. He did not investigate the disposal proce 017 and was 1:.1' 2 Me1, ,>: JUDICIARY '1 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX I ,, I~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Cal/istus Kaoma .~~ r;r; AA• ____ unaware of who was performing the tasks stipulated in the policy before that date. He ' further stated that he did not investigate the effect of the Public Finance Management Act Amendment of 2018, though he was aware that the Act provided for the disposal of government assets. I I 2.219. His analysis -of the Act prior to the amendment, together with the policy, showed the disposal procetjure to be followed wheh disposing of obsolete asset$. According to him, the first version of the document was compliant with the original Act, but he did O· ' not know whether it complied with the amended Act. He noted that clause 1: 0 of the : I policy referred to the Public Finance Management Act and, from his re ding', the policy I • .. appeared to have been created after 201_8. He was aware that befo,re a document ' such as this policy could be operationalised, it had to be approved by the governing I body of the Zambia Revenu~ Authority (ZRA). However, he did not det~rmine whether the policy had in fact been approved by the governing body, nor did he h ave the date I . of such approval or the board minutes confirming it. ' I ' I : 2.220. When it was suggested to him that the asset disposal policy was merely a draft that had not been approved at tl\e time, he insisted that the document was approved and 0, had been given to him by the ZRA. He ~aid he knew the officer who handed bver the document, Mr. Kapembwa from the Internal Affairs Department,, altnough Mr. Kapembwa was not the board secretary. PW16 knew that the board secretary was Suzyo Ngandu, whom he had interviewed, but she did not give him an approved copy of the policy from her custody. Referring to the unmarked document, he stated that it I was titled "Zambia Revenue Authority Disposal Policy" and bore, at the footnote of ' ' every page, the inscription "October 2002, ZRNDA/116/244/TIB/DLC." He noted that exhibit P1 did not have a siinilar footnote. When it was suggested that the footnote I 1 indicated the year and minute of approval, he said he was seeing such a document for the first time. l'l)BLIC OF ZAMe1,4 ~€ JUDICIARY . MAGISTRATE COURT COMP\JX . ~ The People v Kingsley Cha'nda and Callistus Kaoma .~i \ n nl"T ~n~h \~ 67 2.221. He was aware that only the board secretary was mandated to keep board-approved documents. He had relied on exhibit P1 to conclude his inves,tigations. According to him, clause 5.0 of the policy established the ADC and listed its members, including the Director of Administration as chairperson A2 herein and the Administration Manager, Mr. Mulozi, as secretary. Once the committee was created, the policy guided how I ' disposal was to be carried out. 2.222. He explained that clause 7.0 of the policy outlined the procedure for disposal, but his investigation re~ealed that the procedure had been flouted in peveral ways: vehicles had been disposed of to persons who had not tendered, contrary to clause 6.2.6; others had been sold to bidders who were not the highest, again contrary to clause 6.2.6; and the disposal method chosen, referred to fs internal. tender, was meant for disposal to members of staff only, under clause 6.2.1. He noted that the policy I provision preventing non-ZRA employees from picking up vehicles was not found in . clause 6.2.5, which instead dealt with the 48-hour collection period starting from the issuance of the gate pass. The polic' y did not state that a gate pass could be issued to a non-ZRA member. He recalled listing people who collected gate passes despite not ' being ZRA staff, which was wrong according to practice, though not necessarily ' against the written policy. 2.223. ,0.ccording to the indictment, vehicles were sold without advertisements. While he could not recall .all the vehicles involved, he identified some examples: a Toyota Hilux registration ABM 8166 (count 13), a Mitsubishi Pajero registration AKB 6092 (count 1), a Toyota Hj/ux registration ALC 9120 (count 18), and a Toyota Hilux registration ALC 9123 (cou,nt 19). He could not recall the clauses under which they were sold. I ' I Responsibility for advertising lay with Mr. Mulozi, and the accused persons were the The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 68 offered by A2, though PW16 had no documents to that effect. He could not recall who offered AKB 6092, ALC 9120, or ALC 9123. 2.224. While the indictment alleged that vehicles were sold to non-Authority employees, he stated that, in fact, they were al/ sold to ZRA employees. He did not have receipts showing payments by non-Authority employees. He explained that the policy required I ' j vehicles to.be sold to the highest bidders, but all vehicles in the indictment were sold to people who were not the highest bidders. He could not remember who the highest o- bidders we~e, noting !~at most h9d not even bid. None of the buyers in the indictment were highest bidders. The policy provided that if the highest bidder did not pay within the stipulated time, the vehicle should be offered to the next highest bidder. If an asset was advertised and no one bid, it was not correct that the committee could offer it to ' . anyone. Th ' e p ' olicy allowed for the asset to be offered to others but made no mention of the Commissioner General's office in the disposal process under clause 6.3.3. 2.225. His investigation revealed that there was no motor vehicle registered under A1 's name. , I ABM 8166 was registered under Vage Land, a business run by A1. Joseph Monde, the farm manager, had engaged with Teddy Mulenga on th~ sale of the vehicle to Vage Land. PW16 knew Man9a Matthews, who appeared in the subsequent transaction. ZRA records showed that ABM 8166 was purchased by Teddy Mulenga, i but a letter of sale at RA TSA indi;::ated that it was later sold by Manda Matthews on behalf of Vage Land, with Joseph signing. When it was put to him that A1 was unaware I ' of the transaction, the ,witness said it was not possible for the owner of the farm not to know of a vehicle locat,ed there. A1 never told him that Vage Land had bought a vehicle ' from Mr. Manda. He confirmed that A1 was both a shareholder and director in Vage Land, though he had no documents showing that the directors or shareholders had , ' i I made a decision to acquire the vehicle. He did not investigate the powers that Mr. ' : : Manda had in running the farm. The People v Kingsley Chanda and Cal/istus Kaoma 69 2.226. None of the vehicles were registered under any PF member, and they were paid for by ZRA staff. He was unaware of any rule prohibiting ZRA employees from placing purchased vehicles in the possession of another person. The gate pass did not include any role for the Commissioner General's office. · 2.227. He did not examine the contract between ZRA and A1 , nor did he investigate the powers of that office. He did not investigate the role of the Commissioner ' Modernisation. He did not find any minutes or reports by the ADC to management on 0 irregular disposal of vehicles, although he was aware that the ADC was supposed to report to management, and management in turn reported to the board. He was unaware that the board had committees and did not possess any minutes from them. He did not know that the finance committee dealt with asset disposals. 2.228. When referred to memos P7a and P7b, he explained that P7a was a memo from A2 seeking authority from A1 to dispose of vehicles. He did not know how the finance committee handled the issue and did not ask the board secretary whether there were minutes from the finance committee. He also did not seek board minutes on the matter and did not find any ZRA document questioning A1 about his decision in the memo. 2.229. He further stated that to show that money had moved from A1 , he relied on the testimonies of certain witnesses. He explained that A1 , in his role as the overall supervisor under the asset disposal policy, was responsible for ensuring that the i disposal of ZRA's obsolete assets was carried out in line with the laid-down procedures. This responsibility included checking the minutes to confirm that the process had been followed. However, he said he was not aware that the Asset Disposal Committee reported to the Commissioner Modernisation, who in turn re'ported to management, nor did he know who occupied the office of Commissioner Modernisation between 2017 and 2020. He was also not aware that Mr. Dingani Banda 1<,l:.l'UBLIC OF .o\,1,f JUDICIARY -1 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma M f AG I " ST RATE COURT COMPLEX 70 .M$-, J 2.226. None of the vehicles were registered under any PF member, and they were paid for by ZRA staff. He was unaware of any rule prohibiting ZRA employees from placing purchased vehicles in the possession of another person. The gate pass did not include any role for the Commissioner General's office. 2.227. He did not examine the contract between ZRA and A1 , nor did he investigate the powers of that office. He did not investigate the role of the Commissioner ' Modernisation. He did not find any minutes or_reports by the ADq to management on () irregular disposal of vehicles, although he was aw;,re·that the ADC was supposed to report to management, and management in turn reported to the board. He was unaware that the board had committees and did not possess any minutes from th em. He did not know that the finance committee dealt with asset disposals. I 2.228. When referred to memos P7a and P7b, he explained that P7a was a memo from A2 seeking authority from A1 to dispose of vehicles. He did not know how the finance committee handled the issue and did not ask the board secretary whether there were minutes from the finance committee. He also did not seek board minutes on the matter and did not find any ZRA document questioning A1 about his decision in the memo. 2.229. He further stated that to show that money had moved from A1 , he relied on the testimonies of certain witnesses. He explained that A1 , in his role as the overall supervisor under the asset disposal policy, was responsible for ensuring that the i disposal of ZRA's obsolete assets was carried out in line with the laid-down procedures. This responsibility included checking the minutes to confirm that the process had been followed. However, he said he was not aware that the Asset Disposal Committee reported to the Commissioner Modernisation, who in turn re'ported to management, nor did he know who occupied the office of Commissioner Modernisation between 2017 and 2020. He was also not aware that Mr. Dingani Banda ,>:.t.l'lJBLIC OF '°1,1./ JUDICIARY t:i/-4 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Cal/istus Kaoma 70 .~, f " I - £ --··-J. .I .. .1.\Sf. had never reported any irregularities in the disposal of motor vehicles to A1 , and he did not know whether any of the investigators had interviewed Mr. Banda. 2.230. When cross-examined by counsel for A2, PW16 stat~d that the investigation took almost two months. He was familiar with the procedure for disposal of motor vehicles and had I interviewed witnesses in th' e matter. At the conclusion of his investigations, ' he formed the opinion that the accused had willfully failed to follow the disposal procedures for the vehicles listed i,n the indictment. He could not say whether PW3 0 was lying when he claimed that he obtained money from A1 to buy a vehicle. He added that there would have been nothing wrong if Mr. Manda had sold a vehicle to Vage I Land. 2.231. He outlined the procedure for disposal. The first stage was the identification of vehicles, which the accused did noi undertake. The second stage involved preparing a list and submitting it to the ADC, which the accused did not do. The third stage required the Director of Administration, at the time f:'--2, to submit the list to the governing board for approval. Once approved, the list would return to the Director of Administration, who would send it to the ADC secretary, Mr. Mulozi, for advertisement. Employees interested in purchasing vehicles would submit their bids in a box located on the 10th floor. The highest bidders would make payments for the vehicles. The ' ADC, chaired by Mr. Mulozi, woulct evaluate the bids. The accused had no role in chairing 'these meetings. Following payment, gate passes would be issued, and vehicles would leave the yard; once outside the yard, ZRA had no further involvement. 2.232. According to PW16, the accused's failure was in giving money to individuals who had not bid, enabling them to pay for vel\icles and participate in the disposal process. Their I involvement wa,s in the advertisements and payments, put they failed to comply with the requirement that vehicles be disposed of only through bidding. From the finance , department, PW16 ·interviewed Mr. Bright Himuya~ba, · at he had . \': JUDICIARY '1 I The People v Kingsley Cha,nda and Callistus Kaorna _ MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX _ ?1 received money from the accused. PW16 did not find any vehicles registered in the names of the accused at RTSA and did ·n ot interview anyone from the audit department. Mr. Himuyamba also did not say that he had received money from an employee who was not authorised to make such a payment. 2.233. In re-examination, PW16 clarified that the irregularity in the advertisements and payments was that some vehicles were never advertised and money was given to non bidders. Q 3.0. • THE DEFENCE 3.1. Mr. Kingsley Chanda, A1 , aged 56, a tax consultant and former Commissioner General of the Zambia Revenue Authority between 2016 to 2021, testified in his defence as DW1. He was appointed to this position by the President of the Republic of Zambia pursuant to section 19 of the ZRA Act, Cap 321, which provides that I.he President shall make such an appointment. His authority as Commissioner General was also derived from section 11 of the ZRA Act, as well as from his employment contract signed with the Board. 3.2. At the outset of his defence, he stated that he had been arrested, detained, charged, .,,--.. Q and was now being prosecuted for allegedly failing to follow a procedure contained in a document before the court marked P1. He emphasised that P1, referred to as the Asset Disposal Policy, did not actually exist within ZRA as an approved document. According to him, P1 was merely a draft created by a team of officers who had been tasked with reviewing the Asset Disposal Policy that was in force at the time. He ' . explained that the correct and applicable Asset Disposal Policy during his tenure as Commissioner General was the one duly approved by the Board in 2002. That policy, he noted, contained board references, a paragraph indicating when the Board meeting took place, and the decision bf the Board. 1>-'c.1'U6LIC OF G<!M JUDICIARY -4 M6,GISTRATE COURT COMPLEX ~I 1~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma O6 OCT 20~.~ 3.3. In contrast, the draft policy marked P1 lacked any of those features. Unfortunately, he said, neither the arresting officer nor the prosecutors took the trouble to charge him under the correct policy that was actually in effect during the material period. 3.4. He explained that the custodians of the policy were the Board Secretary and the Commissioner General. He stated that had the investigators obtained and presented the correct document before this court, the current prosecution would likely not have arisen. He was being prosecuted on the basis of a policy that did not officially exist in the ZRA. 3.5. He testified that in discharging his duties as Commissioner General, he was always guided by his lawful authority and assisted by the commissioners and directors who reported directly to him. In the context of the present matter, concerning the Asset Disposal Policy, he explained that he was assi~ted specifically by the Commissioner ' for Modernisation and Corporate Strategy, who at the time was Mr. Dingani Banda, the current Commissioner General of ZRA. 3.6. He stated that /he responsibility for disposing of obsolete items rested with the office To execute this function, the ZRA Board had created the ADC, which reported to Mr. Banda, and in turn, Mr. Banda reported on such matters directly to the Finance Committee of the Board of this commissioner. 3.7. Accordi~g to A1, under the Asset Disposal Policy and procedures applicable during his tenure, the Commissioner General was not a member of the ADC. Therefore, he emphasised, finding himself accused of not following the procedures of a committee to which :he did not belong was deeply troubling. I 3.8. He explained that the ADC was responsible for receiving lists of assets from ZRA offices across the country that were earmarked for disposal. The committee's role was to confirm that those assets were indeed obsolete, meaning they had zero book value 1:,1>U6LIC OF Z4Me The People v Kingsley Chanda and Cal/istus Kaoma ,>; JUDICIARY -'I 73 MAGISTRATF m1 /RT rnuo, cv 3.3. In contrast, the draft policy marked P1 lacked any of those features. Unfortunately, he said, neither the arresting officer nor the prosecutors took the trouble to charge him under the correct policy that was actually in effect during the material period. 3.4. He explained /hat the custodians of the policy were the Board Secretary and the Commissioner.General. He stated that had the investigators obtained and presented the correct document before this court, the current prosecution would likely not have arisen. He was being prosecuted on the basis of a policy that did not officially exist in ' . ' ' the ZRA 3.5. He testified that in discharging his duties as Commissioner General, he was always guided by his lawful authority and assisted by the commissioners and directors who reported directly to him. In the context of the present matter, concerning the Asset Disposal Policy, he explained that he was assisted specifically by the Commissioner . i for Modernisation and Corporate Strategy, who at the time was Mr. Dingani Banda, the current Commissioner General of ZRA. 3.6. He stated that ,the responsibility for disposing of obsolete items rested with the office To execute this function, the ZRA Board had created the ADC, which reported to Mr. Banda, and in turn, Mr. Banda reported on such matters directly to the Finance Committee of the Board of this commissioner. 1 A1, 3.7. According to under the Asset Disposal Policy and procedures applicable during his tenure, the Commissioner General was not a member of the ADC. Therefore, he emphasised, finding himself accused of not following the procedures of a committee to which :he did not belong was deeply troubling. I 3.8. He explained that the ADC was responsible for receiving lists of assets from ZRA offices across the country that were earmarked for disposal. The committee's role was to confirm that those assets were indeed obsolete, meaning they had zero book value £:_l"UBLIC OF ZA.¼B The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~ JUDICIARY 1 -'1 73 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX to the ZRA. Once confirmed, the ADC oversaw their disposal, which covered not only motor vehicles but also computers, furniture, and other item~. 3.9. After valuation, the ADC prepared a Board paper seeking approval to dispose of the assets. As a member of the Board, which comprised about nine members, A1 and I I other members received such papers presented by the Commissioner for Modernisation on behalf of the ADC. Once the Board a'pproved, the ADC proceeded to advertise the asset/;, with the approval always communicated through a Board Resolution. The State had already submitted copies of these resolutions in evidence, ' . and the Board Secretary, who recorded the minutes of all Board meetings, confirmed in court that the procedure had been fully followed. 3.10. A1 affirmed that, as a Board member who attended all those meetings, he could confirm that the prescribed procedures were indeed adhered to. Addressing i . allegations that some vehicles were not advertised, he stated that the Commissioner General then or now was not responsible for advertising anything in ZRA. That responsibility lay solely with the ADC. 3.11. On the allegation that S?me vehicles had not been approved by the Board, he referred to the testimony of the Board Secretary, that she confirmed in court that all vehicles had been duly approved. As for the claim that vehicles were offered to individuals who ' had not bid, or to those who bid below the highest bidders, Mr. Chanda explained that, ! as a Board. member, he' and his colleagues would not have knowledge of how the ADC i handled approvals after they were granted. In his view, the right people to address • sucri allegations would be the ADC itself and the Commissioner for Modernisation. ' 3.12. He explain~d that when the State produced the two memorandums, part of the official communication system in the Authority, it did not, whether knowingly or deliberately, ' 1"-l:.pUBLIC OF ZA¼e · JUDICIARY -1 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX ~I The People v ,Kingsley Chanda and :callistus Kao ma O6 OCT 20257~ ' produce the letter from the Secretary to the Treasury addressed to his office, authorising ZRA to proceed with the sale of obsolete vehicles to members of staff. 3.13. He referred to Exhibit P7a, a memorandum from the Director of Administration to him · dated 15th November 2019, which was accompanied by a letter from the Ministry of Finance signed by the Secretary to the Treasury, dated 30th Octbber 2019. He also referred to Exhibit P7b, his own memorandum dated 20th November 2019. He explained that after the last quarter Board meeting in 2019, which had approved the disposal of obsolete vehicles to members of staff/ he received an inter-office memorandum from the Director of Administration indicating approval for the disposal of obsolete ZRA assets. 3.14. Upon receiving these memorandums and their attachments, he instructed one of the executive assistants in the Office of the Commissioner General to confirm with the Director of Administration whether the vehicles were indeed obsolete; whether they were at least five years old, and whether they had been identified for disposal by the Asset Disposal Committee. He also sought confirmation from the Director Legal to determine whether the request from the Director of Administration .fell within his powers to approve who confirmed that the request was indeed Within his powers, in line with the delegated authority provided for in the Act, which empowered the Commissioner General to execute the functions of the Board. He stated that, based on prior approval by both the Board and the Secretary lo the Treasury, he approved the disposal, subject to Board notification. 3.15. He explained that this was a matter of Board notification and ratification for three reasons: first, the Board had already approved; second, the Ministry of Finance had already approved; and third, it was within his powers to make such decisions subject to Board notification and ratification. He pointed out that, as confirmed through Board resolutions and minutes, the decision was subsequently ratifie l'usuc OF z 1.1 81 ~~ JUDiCIARY 4 - The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma MAGISTRATE COURTC0MPLEX75 :T _ "T@ :_pa 3.16. A1 emphasised that this was not the only decision he had made in this manner. Both he and previous Commissioners General had, over the years, made similar ' administrative decisions under the powers vested in the office by the Act, subject to Board notification and ratification. He described this as a normal operational standard in ZRA, essential for administrative efficiency and effectiveness. He stated that he had made hundreds of such decisions in his five years as Commissioner General, none of which had ever been rejected or questioned by the Board. 3.17. He added that if a decision made by the Commissioner General was ever rejected, questioned, or not ratified, the Board had the authority to sanction, surcharge, or even suspend the Commissioner General. None of these actions had ever been taken against him during his tenure. He noted that not all the vehicles listed in the memorandum from the Director of Administration (Exhibit P?a) were included in the indictment before the court. 3.18. A1 testified that ZRA has a very strict audit system. Every year, the Authority is, audited by three independent auditors. The first is the Auditor General's Office, the second is ZRA's Internal Audit Department, and the third is an independent international firm. During his tenure, the independent firms engaged included Deloitte and Touche, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Ernst & Young. These three auditors, he explained, ' operate independently and without any limitation, and their audits cove[ ZRA's procedures.regulations, tax collections, tax accounting, and the disposal of obsolete assets. I 3.19. He stated that every year, the audit reports were submitted to the ZRA Board, and i ·every other year they were also submitted to Parliament. In his five years at ZRA, there ' was not a single auslit query regarding the disposal df obsolete assets. He emphasised that continuous auditing of ZRA operations was the quickest way his office could have . . ' been alerted to any failure by the Commissioner Modernis · DC lo follow <-4~ . · l"-f.l'U L OF= JUDICIARY "1-1 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Ca//istus Kaoma -;,;,,,, Mf GISTRATE COURT COMPLEX 76 proper procedure. It was also the only way the Board would have fnown and taken corrective action. Above all, the Auditor General's reports were the only way the Government itself could have been informed and taken collective action. 3.20. He further explained that the ZRA Board operates thrqugh specific committees, each with a specialised focus. These include the Finance Committee, which is responsible I for all finances and assets; the Staff and Disciplinary Committee, which handles recommendations, promotions, and disciplinary matters; the Audit Committee, which deals with audit queries; and the Modernisation Committee. These Board committees also establish sub-committees under management to analyse issues in detail before I . they are taken to the Board. Of relevance to this case, he said, is th~ ADC, which was created by the Finance Committee. 3.21. The ADC, being a creation of the Finance Committee, follows a specific procedure. Once' the ADC completes its work, it prepares a Board paper which is submitted to the Director of Administration. If the Director is satisfied, the paper is forwarded to the Commissioner Modernisation. If the Commissioner Modernisation is satisfied, the paper is submitted to the Board Secretary for inclusion in the Finance Committee's agenda. Once the Finance Committee is satisfied, 'the paper is then presented, 0 ! through its Chairman, to the Governing Board. The Chairman of the Finance Committee is the one who presents the paper to the full Governing Board. 3.22. He stressed that ZRA is a highly structured institutio~ with clearly defined layers of responsibility. In the asset disposal process, the Manager who chaired the ADC was ' ! positioned at the fifth layer below the Commissioner General. This Manager reported . I ' directly to an Assistant Director, wlio had his own authority over the ADC. The Assistant Director, in turn, reportep to the Director of Administration, »'ho then reported to the Commissioner Modernisation in matters of asset disposal. ~-=--- I ,,ueUC OF ZAM81-'i ~€ JUDICIARY . MAGISTRATE COURT COMPlXJIJ.=~.;\ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma • ~~ \ n c nrT ?0?~ ~ 't" -,'-- . 3.23. Under this structure, the Commissioner Modernisation reported directly to the Finance Committee, of which A1 was a member. He stated that whatever was brought before them at committee level and subsequently to the full Board was dealt with diligently, they approved matters when appropriate and disapproved when necessary. 3.24. He rejected the suggestion that he had failed to supervise the ADC. The ADC, he said, was a committee of the Board and reported to the Board, not directly to him. If there had been any failure at that junior level, it would nbt have been appropriate to punish the Commissioner General, just as in any other large organisation the Chief Executive Officer is not personally liable for every operational lapse ~t the lowest levels. That is precisely why systems exist, to detect such issues and why audits are in place to bring any failures to light. None of those systems or audits had ever indicated any such failure to him. Therefore, he concluded, he had no/ failed in his supervisory role. A 3.25. 1 recounted that the very first time he saw the arresting officer was when the officer ' ' picked him up at Police Headquarters, took him to Woodlands, and threw him into the ' I cells around 09:00 hours in early June 2023. He explained that the arresting officer ' I interrogated him without first obtaining his side of the story. The officer alleged that r· unknown PF officials had contacted him to buy vehicles from ZRA for PF campaigns. (=) However, the officer did not provide the details of the PF officials, where they allegedly met him, or when such meetings took place. According to A1 , such a meeting never occurred. 3.26. He further pointed out that the arresting officer did not produce before the court any I I letter of sale of any vehicle from ZRA to PF. He emphasised that all vehicles are I registered with RA TSA, which maintains a full trail of ownership, yet the officer did not bring any white book for a vehicle sold to PF by ZRA and registered in PF's name. Instead, the arre?ting officer moved the court to DEC offices where three vehicles with PF stickers were paraded. A1 argued that anyone c ' ~SlR:~~ ~ JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Charida and Cal/istus Kaoma 78 whether political, religious, or otherwise, and that this was not evidence of a ZRA sale to PF. 3.27. The evidence from Ms. Ngandu and Mr. Mulozi indicated that all vehicles were sold exclusively to ZRA employees, and that the letters of sale before the court confirmed this. What the officers who bought those vehicles later did with ihem, A1 argued, had nothing to do with ZRA procedures. He explained that under ZRA's asset disposal procedure at the time, the process ended once payment for the obsolete vehicle was made by the officer and a letter was generated to RA TSA confirming that ZRA had sold the vehicle to that officer. There was no requirement for a gate pass in the disposal policy, and once the letter was issued, ZRA had no further claim over the vehicle. 3.28. On the issue of Nalishebo Musipili, A1 denied eve(instructing any assistant to call her to bid for any vehicle. He said ZRA had three registers recording every person visiting the Commissioner General, whether an officer or not. The first was at the ground floor, where ZRA security captured the visitor's details, time, and purpose. The second was on the 9th floor, where ZRA security and Zambia Pplice kept similar records. The third and most important was his secretary's register, which recorded the visitor's details, I' reasons for seeing him, and appointment dates. None of these records showed any such visit by Ms. Musipili, and the arresting offic,er did not present such evidence before court. A1 added that call records were available with network providers and ZICTA, and the arresting officer could have verifieq his claim but did not. 3.29. Regarding PW2's evidence of a meeting, A1 state.d that the Commissioner General's office did not summon junior officers, it was the responsibility of their directors and ' commissioners. The meeting in question was called by his secretary for the Director of Administration and the Director of Finance. A1 wanted to understand how they were going to deal with the assets identified: after · tap[l!TG · e junior officer ~ JUDICIARY 8 1 -1 ,Ml The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma • '7%. Gl~TRATE COUR!C.~X _ 79 mentioned by PW2 was not invited by him, but rather by the Director of Finance, which was normal. To the best of his recollection, that officer did not say a word 1during the meeting. The two directors explained the process according to ZRA procedure, and at no point was the junior officer admonished. 3.30. Addressing the allegation from Bevious, who was engaged to his nephew, A1 stated ! . that her claim was that his nephew told her that he had instructed her to bid for a I vehicle. He stressed that she had no evidence to support this. He never called her for such a purpose, and rio such communication existed. The only time he met her was ) ' when she sought his intervention in her relationship with his nephew, which he refused to do. I 3.31. On the matter of Vage Land Farms, A1 explained that it was a private limited company with its own management structure responsible for making independent decisions for its smooth running and profitability. Shareholders were not involved in day-to-day operations such as procurement of inputs, machinery, or seeds. He had no knowledge of the transaction betvJeen the company and Mr. Mathews Mpnda, a ZRA officer, until his manager, Mr. Moonde, was summoned by police. He said the fact was that Mr. Manda bought the vehicle from ZRA, and eight months later sold it to the Farm, as evidenced by the letter of sale between the two parties. 3.32. When he learned of the police call-?ut, A1 went to the farm offices and found several documents: the letter of sale from Mr. Manda to Vage Land, a copy of Mr Manda's NRC (D8), a copy of his white book (D4) for the same vehicle, a Zambia Police anti car theft form, RATSA documents for change ofownership, an affidavit (D7) signed by a Commissioner of Oaths, a ZRA-approved letter for change of ownership (D10), a RA TSA vehicle inspection report (D9), a RA TSA certificate for change of ownership ' . . (D6), and a bank depOsit slip with a ZRA account number, On the same file, he also found the certificate of incorporation (D5) for V rj documents JUDIC . MfA GISTRATE C.O . The People v Kingsley Chanda and_Callistus Kaoma ,l!#f_. confirmed that the transaction was purely between Vage Land's management and Mr. Manda, and that he had no involvement in it whatsoever. His knowledge of the matter came only from the documents he discovered and from his manager, who was interrogated by the police. 3.33. When he was appointed to the Office of Commissioner General, he signed a contract with the qoard and kept the unsigned copy (011 ). 3.34. Regarding thJ Asset Disposal Policy before this Court, P1, he clarified that it differs significantly from the Asset Disposal Policy that was actually implemented between . l 2017 and 2020. The first major difference is that P1 contains no reference to a meeting of the Board approving the policy. This is contrary to standard practice, as all ZRA policies must have a Board reference, which indicates the date and year the policy was approved for implementation. Board meetings, held quarterly, always generate minutes containing such references. 3.35. The second major difference lies in the composition of the ADC. Under the actual approved policy, the committee was to be headed by the Director of Administration, with all members being at Director level. However, in P1, which he regarded as a draft, ;Q the committee was headed by a very junior officer at manager level, in this case Mr. Mulozi. This composition was never in line with the approved structure. I , 3.36. Another key point was that the footnote of every ZRA policy contains a Board reference I number issued bY, the Board Secretary. This reference starts with "ZRA/" followed by the sponsor of the policy, for example, if the sponsor was the Commissioner of . I Finance, the reference would begin with "ZRA/CF", and then a sequential number reflecting 'how many policies the Board had approved. P1 lacks such a reference, ' ' further confirming it was never Board-approveq. f.l'UBLIC Of' G<\,1,fe "- JUDICIARY 4 ~IM AGISTRATE COURT COMPLIEX@ O6 OCT 2025 The People v Kingsl'ey Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 3.37. P1 was simply a working document, prepared by a small committee at management level to revise the old Asset Disposal Policy approved by the Board in 2002. During my tenure, the 2002 policy remained iri force. 3.38. Under the 2002 policy, the asset disposal process began with the identification of I obsolete assets, in this case, motor vehicles, by the Transport Manager in consultation with station managers. The list :of such assets would then be submitted to the ADC, which would assess them in line with procedure. Once approved, the ADC would 0 award the assets to successful bidders. 3.39. The successful bidders would then proceed to the cashier to make payment. After payment, the cashier would issue a rebeipt, and in the case of vehicles, the Transport Manager would write to RTSA confirming the transaction and indicating that ZRA had no further claim to the vehicle. At that point, the ZRA procedure ended. Whatever the purchaser chose to do with the vehicle thereafter had nothing to do with ZRA. 3.40. ZRA maintained an internal anti-corruption mechanism known as the Internal Affairs Unit. This unit was tasked with investigating any wrongdoing by ZRA employees. In the context of this case, Internal Affai/s investigated the matter and, in fact, charged Mr. Mulozi. I 3.41. During cross-examination by the State, A1 confirmed that he served as the Chief I Executive Officer of ZRA from 2016 to 2021. His role included overseeing the operations of the Authority but did not extend to managing ZRA's properties and assets. He acknowledged that there was a disposal procedure in place, which was the responsibility of the ADC. The ADO received lists of obsolete assets from user departments across the country; confirmed their condition, valued them, and prepared committee papers for the Board. While the Board made final decisions, these were ,,_,;.PUBLIC OF ZA¼s JUDICIARY /4 b. i/MA GISTRATE COURT COMPLEX l~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 0 6 OCT 2025 82 then communicated back to the ADC, which proceeded to advertise the approved I assets. 3.42. A1 agreed that not all assets necessarily went to the highest bidder, although where bidding applied, the highest bidder prevailed. Once payment was made, change of ownership was effected, and successful bidders collected their vehicles using a gate ' ' pass. He confirmed his familiarity with Sections 11 and 1,9 of the ZRA Act, noting that ' the Board could delegate authority to the Commissioner General, who was tasked with I • () implementing Board functions. 3.43. He admitted receiving a memorandum (P7a) from A2, requesting approval to dispose of vehicles omitted from the initial Board-approved list. He approved the list. Another ' request (P7b) sought permission from the Secretary to the Treasury to dispose of obsolete assets in line with the ZRA Disposal Policy, a.nd authority was granted to proceed accordingly. A1 maintained that his contract and the ZRA Act gave him i i ' delegated authority to make such decisions, subject to. ratification and notification, ' ' which he had shown the court. 3.44. He identified the vehicles listed in P7a, which included ALC 9120 allegedly linked by ' PW9 to him for personal benefit, though he insisted PW9 Ms Chibale lied, suggesting personal animosity. He denied that there were call records to support her claim and : ' I asserted that she had once asked him to intervene in her relationship with his nephew. I He admitted having no proof of this request. 3.45. A1 confirmed that the Commissioner Modernisation supervised tre ADC and that when vehicles were omitted, the Director Administration wrote to him. He asked the I . Executive Director to confirm ADC's identification of the vehicles and sought legal advice on whether it was within his power to approve the disposal. However, he conceded that he had not produced these requests ~~@mzij . JUDICIARY 1-1 M~AGISTR0ATE C;OU;RT C7OMPLfEX. ~ ~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 83 then communicated back to the ADC, which proceeded to advertise the approved I assets. 3.42. A1 agreed that not all assets necessarily went to the highest bidder, although where bidding applied, the highest bidder prevailed. Once payment was made, change of ownership was effected, and successful bidders collected their vehicles using a gate ' rn' pass. He confirmed his famili~rity with Sections 11 and of the ZRA Act, noting that the Board could delegate authority to the Commissioner General, who was tasked with I implementing Board functions. 3.43. He admitted receiving a memorandum (P7a) from A2, requesting approval to dispose of vehicles omitted from the initial Board-approved list. He approved the list. Another . I request (P?b) sought permission from the Secretary to the Treasury to dispose of . . obsolete assets in line with the ZRA Disposal Policy, and authority was granted to } proceed accordingly. A1 maintained that his contract and the ZRA Act gave him i I delegated authority to make such decisions, subject to. ratification and notification, I I I which he had shown the court. 3.44. He identified the vehicles listed in P7a, which included ALC 9120 allegedly linked by PW9 to him for personal benefit, though he insisted PW9_ Ms Chibale lied, suggesting personal animosity. He denied that there were call records to support her claim and ' ' I asserted that she had once asked him to intervene in her relationship with his nephew. I He admitted having no proof of this request. 3.45. A1 confirmed that the Commissioner Modernisation supervised the ADC and that . ' when vehicles were omitted, the Director Administration wrote to him. He asked the I . Executive Director to confirm ADC's identification of the vehicles and sought legal advice on whether it was within his power to approve, the disposal. However, he conceded that he had not produced these requests ~~§~ JUDICIARY -'I MAGISTRATE COUR2T C0OM;P;LE7X f~ r ~ a 6 OCT The People V Kingsley Chanda and Cal/istus Kaoma 83 3.46. Regarding PW4's testimony Ms Nalishebo Musipili, A1 agreed she knew him before joining ZRA through her aunt, but denied involvement in any alleged irregular vehicle I transactions. He denied owning the vehicle ABM 8166, stating it was purchased by Mathews Manda from ZRA, and while he had produced supporting documents, he admitted he did not have a ZRA receipt or letter of sale to prove the purchase. 3.47. He acknowledged that some vehicles seen at the DEC were b\anded with PF logos, ' including '1ECL 2021," but c ' laimed no knowledge of their approval or advertisement .,.,--, I • ,Q status. He reiterated that P1, the Asset Disposal Policy before thy court, was the wrong policy; despite bearing stamps and certification, and admitted he had not produced the correct policy. 3.48. A1 confirmed attending Board meetings where resolutions, .including for vehicle disposal, were made. He acknowledged that some vehicles, such as ABM 8166, I appeared in P2 but were not in the Board's resolution list or subsequent adverts. He confirmed1the gate pass for ABM 8166 bore the Director Administration's stamp and that the vehicle was registered to Vage Land, his company, though he denied irregular acquisition. ,,---- . Q 3.49. He agreed that several vehicles in P7a were not in the adverts (P4) and that the composition of the ADC in P1 listed the Director Administration as chairperson. He conceded that he did not work with A2 to dispose of the 22 vehicles before court, nor I did he instruct him to reserve vehicles for PF or source buyers for unadvertised vehicles. He acknowledged mentioning managers Monde and Nkhoma but had not brought them as witnesses. 3.50. A1 admitted that the unsigned contract (011) was all he had produced, and he had ' : I not provid~d a signed copy or the correct policy. While aware of ZRA's procedures, he I <c.l'uSLIC OF Z4Me1. ~ JUDICIARY :</ MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX I 1~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma . ,g::. ~~· s4 n _ ···- maintained that as Commissioner General, he was not in charge of administration and it was not his duty to ensure 'all procedures were followed. 3.51. When cross-examined by counsel for A2, A1 explained that the chairperson of the ADC was Mr. Mulozi. He clarifi~d that the Dire9tor Administration, A2, did not report to I him directly. The reporting structure at ZRA was such that he, as Commissioner General, supervised the Commissioners in charge of various divisions. These Commissioners, in turn, supervised Directors, who then oversaw Assistant Directors, who in turn supervised managers. In this hierarchy, A2, as Director Administration, reported to the Commissioner Modernisation, Mr. Dingani Banda, who in turn reported directly to A1 . I 3.52. DW2, Kaoma Callistus A2 herein testified th~! he served as Director Administration I nd at ZRA from 2 April 2012 to 2°.d April 2022. In that role, he headed the Administration Department, which was responsible for transport, logistics and security, purchasing and supply, building construction and maintenance, and general administration. 3.53. He stated that he left ZRA three years ago and has since found it difficult to access documents relating to this matter. For that reason, he had not filed any documents of his own and would rely on documents filed by the prosecution to support his defence. 3.54. Covering the period from January 2017 to Dec;ember 2020, which is the period in the indictment, he explained that his department was placed under the newly created Modernisation and Corporate Strategy Division. He was therefore reporting to the ' Commissioner Modernisation and Corporate Strategy, who at that time was Mr. Dingani Banda, now the Commissioner General and, as he had come to learn, the complainant in this matter. 3.55. The reporting structure was such that the ~ommissioner Modernisation reported directly to the Commissioner General. The .,MCf@f,1j-'1B~1o;:\~\:8,< ?i J A i F R'f11M". three MIAG ISTRATE COURT COMPLEX iiit lie or.r The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma U fi ?n?~ 85 departments headed by three directors, Director Corporate Strategy, Director /CT, and himself as Director Administration. None of the directors attended Board meetings, as these were the preserve of Commissioners and the Commissioner General. He explained that because of this structure, his role between 2017 and 2020 carried minimal influence in ZRA, he was not a controlling officer, not head of the division his . I I a department fell under, not board member, and only attended Board meetings when specially invited. 3.56. With regard to this matter, he emphasised that he was not a member of the ADC. . i During the period in question, the disposal of ZRA assets was the responsibility of the ADC, as provided for under the Asset Disposal Policy, which mandated the ADC to decide on the modalities for disposal in an effective, efficient, and transparent manner. I 3.57. He stated that the ADC was interdepartmental in composition. It was chaired by the Administration ,Manager, Mr. Mulozi , and its members included the Administrative Officer, the Transport and Security Manager, the Stores Controller, the Accountant in charge of Assets, the Assistant Commissioner in charge of Debt Collection, and the Assistant Commissioner in charge of Policy. ' :() 3.58. Administratively, because Mr. Mulozi was his direct report, he reported to him in his capacity as ADC Chairperson. All activities of the ADC were reported to the ZRA Governing Boa.rd through the Finance Subcommittee of the Board. 3.59. He explained that between 2017 and 2020, ZRA operated under a single Asset Disposal Policy, which governed the disposal of all assets, including motor vehicles. In 2018, however, the Authority underwent s1:,veral significant changes, structural, legislative, and policy-related, which necessitated a review of the Asset Disposal Policy to align it with the new direction the Authority was taking. When A1 stated that I in use was the 2002 policy \>.E.ruBUC OF ZA,w ,i JUDICIARY MIAG ISTRATE COURT COMPLE I X ~ The People iv Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~j O6 OCT ?n?, 86 3.60. He explained that some of these changes were prompted by a robust nationwide automation and modernisation programme undertaken by ZRA. There were also adjustments to the organisational structure, which saw the creation of new positions and the abolition of others. National legislative reforms also impacted ZRA. Relevant to the matter. before court was the re-ehactment of the Public Finance Act, signed into law in 2018. This development brought consequential policy changes within ZRA, particularly in the Transport and Finance policies. ' 3.61. In 2019, ZRA began revising the Asset Disposal Policy to reflect these new I developments. However, as of December 2020, this revision had not been, concluded • i or approved: Therefore, whenever he referred to the Asset Disposal Policy in his testimony, he was referring to the version in use at the time, and not the document marked as P1 in court. 3.62. For clarity, he noted that P1 contained anomalies, discrepancies, and inconsistencies. ' First, the policy in P1 was undated. Second, ii lacked the customary forewqrd from the Commissioner General, which was standard during the tenure of A1 as Commissioner General. Third, the cover page of P1 bore a tag line, "Working to serve you efficiently," that ZRA had stopped using in 2017. By 2018, the official cover page carried the tag line "My tax, )our tax, our destiny." The fourth anomaly, he said, was that despite P1 being used for the approval of asset disposals in October 2017, pages 2, 3, and 4 of the document retroactively referenced the Public Finance Act of 2018, an Act that was only signed into law on 11th April 2018. He remarked that it baffled him that a document purportedly in existence in 2017 could contain references to legislation that had not yet been enacted. 3.63. A2 further testified that all approvals and recommendations made by the ZRA Board between 2017 and 2020 were in accordance with clause 3.4(a) of the Asset Disposal Policy that was in use at the time. He emphasis ttliJs)Eloo s consistently 1. JUDICIARY ~ . . MIAG ISTRATE COURT COM7PL EX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Ca/1,stus Kaoma • ~, n _ _ _ _ _ · · ~ 87 applied across all national stations during the years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. However, upon conducting a detailed analysis of document P1, which was presented in court, he observed !hp! clause 3.4(a) does not appear in it. 3.64. According to A2, page 2 of P1 contains clause 3, but this clause has no subdivisions, bullet points, or sub-cl,auses laqeled A, B, or C. Furthermore, clause 3 in P1 only ' outlines the policy in general terms and does not set out the modalities of sale as contained in the genuine policy thal w~s in use. By contrast, in the authentic policy, · CJ ,r clause 3.4(a) dealt with, the modali\ies of sale, and Board resolutions and minutes, such as those contain.ed in P3, clearly referenced it. , I 3.65. He noted that in P1, the provisior on modalities of sale appears on page 3 as clause 6, with internal tenderi~g falling under clause 6.2. He stressed that the ZRA Board and the ADC never made, recommendations under clause 6.2, nor did they pass resolutions pursuant to it. I 3.66. By comparing P1 with P3, A2 highlighted several inconsistencies. For instance, on 16 November 2017, management's recommendation to the Board in P3 stated that used I motor vehicles be dispoped of by way of internal tender "as provided by clause 3.4(a) ! of the ZRA Asset Dispo~al Policy." Yet, clause 3.4(a) does not exist in P1. Similarly, on 2 September 2019, the recommendation under item 3.03 again referred to clause 3.4(a) for internal tendering, and in July 2020, a memorandum to the Board reiterated ' ' that the disposal of used vehicles to staff by internal tender was to be done "as ' ' provided by clause 3.4(i?)-" 3.67. From this analysis, A2 concluded· that the Board did not use P1 as its guiding I • document when making approva,ls. He further pointed out that page 2 of P1 contains two clauses, 5.1 and ~-2, which were not part of the Asset Disposal Policy in use at the time. These inserted clause~ deal ~ith attendance or representation at meetings 1:.rll6UC OF ZAMs1 ~ JUDICIARY The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaom,a MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX 88 by proxies or delegated persons to ensure continuity of business, and according to him, they were not features of the genuine policy. I 3.68. A2 went on to explain, the procedure that was followed in disposing of assets during the period covered by the indictment. For clarity, he outlined the.activities involved in what he described as the "procedural life cycle," identifying the officers responsible for each stage. 3.69. The first activity was carried out by the Transport Unit of the Administration Department. Vehicles were selected for disposal If they had either clocked four years from the date of purchase or had reached a mileage of 300,000 kilometres. The Transpbrt Officer, in liaison with the Head Mechanic, also placed reserve prices on the vehicles. This information was then submitted to the Security and Transport Manager for approval. 3. 70. The second activity involved the submission of the list of identified vehicles to the Chairperson of the ADC, a task undertaken by the Security and Transport Manager. The third activity was the presentation of this list to the ADC for consideration, which was ddne by the ADC Secretary. At this stage, the ADC verifi~d that the identified vehicles met the dispos?I criteria in terms of mileage and age. The ADC also approved the reserve prices and considered the method oft disposal they could recommend to the Board in line with cl\3use 3.4(a) of the Asset Disposal Policy in use at the time. j • 3.71. The fourth activity was the preparation of the Board paper, a responsibility of the ADC Chairperson. This document, essentially the minutes of the ADC meeting that considered the submissions from the Transport and Security Department, was sent to A2's office for vetting before submission to the Head of Modernisation for approval. 3. 72. The fifth activity was the submission of the Board paper by A2's office to the Board Secretary for further review. The sixth activity invo1])1l€J.'c!fl:e·Bt,~$~nM\m5. the Board JUDICIARY MIAG ISTRATE COU'R?T C~OM;PL~EX7 ~ Ji.t The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma O R nrT 89 paper to the Board. The Board Secretary included it on the agenda for the Finance Committee of the Board, after which the Commissioner Modernisation presented it to the Finance Committee. 3. 72. The seventh activity was the communication of the Board's decision, which was done by the Board Secretary to the Head of the Division (who was th.e head of divisions). This communication outlined, in summary, the Board's decision, the expected action, and the responsible officer. The next step was to seek authority from the Secretary to the Treasury. Based on the Board's decisi9n to use internal tender in line with clause 3.4(a), the Division Head, through the Commissioner General, requested the necessary authority from the Secretary to the Treasury. I I 3. 73. Once the Secretary to the Treasury granted a~thority1 for the rec9mmended method of disposal, the Commissioner General informed the Head of the .Division, who in turn I I informed the ADC. A2 personally communicated the Board and Treasury's decision to Mr. Mulozi, the ADC Chairperson. 3.74. The next activity was the advertisement of th~ vehicles. Based on the Board's and the Secretary to the Treasury's approval, the ADC proc~eded to advertise the vehicles to .---Qmembers of staff. The advertisement was sent to all staff members using Mr. Mulozi's email address via the ZRA intranet. 3. 75. The following step was the receipt and evaluation of bids, which were handled by the I ADC Chairperson. The ADC set evaluation criteria for selecting the winning bids, and after evaluation, the results were communicated by the ADC Chairperson, again using his email account, to all members of staff. The final stage was the preparation of awards to successful bidders, which was done by the ADC Chairperson, who signed ',' the offer letters issued to the successful applicants. l'uBLIC OF ZAMs, I'-€ .JUDICIARY '1 MAGISTRATE COURT .~QMPI.EX I The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~l O6 OCT 202;7~ 0 3. 78. Once successful bidders had been identified, they deposited the required funds into the ZRA account at Zanaco. Using the deposit slip, the bidders then obtained an official ZRA receipt from the cashier. Before issuing the receipt, the cashier verified the ' payment against the approved list of successful bidders. . I 3.79. Once payment was confirmed, the proof of payment .was submitted to the ADC Chairperson, Mr. Mulozi, who compiled a list of all successful bidders that had completed payment. This list was then given to the Transport and Security Manager, : . . ! who prepared letters of clearance to introduce the new owners of the vehicles to ' RASTA. Upon issuance of the letter of clearance, the ca~ key, and the original white ' book, t,he new owner was free to collect the vehicle from the ZRA yard. At that point, ZRA no longer had any claim to the vehide. Because many of the v~hicles were in ' ' poor condition or non-runners, the new owners often reiwested that ZRA allow their . ' ' . I preferred mechanics to examine and repair the vehicles either on ZRA premises or at an offsite garage before collection. 3.80. This procedure reflected the disposal of vehicles in accordance with clause 3.4 of the Asset Disposal Policy in use at the time. He explained that his role in the process was i I . limited and clearly defined. He personally did not purchase any motor vehicle or any other used asset during his ten years at ZRA, nor did he instruct anyone to purchase j . vehicles on his behalf, contrary to allegations made by Mr. Mulozi. ' 3.81. A2 clarified that he was not a member of the ADC during the period covered by the indictment and did not serve as its chairperson. The chairmanship of the ADC was by . . I __ vi_~ue of Mr. Mulozi's position, as had be~n_ the case willl_Mi-f, Chimukci Qhjdangwe, Mr_. Mulozi's predecessor. He did not participate in the ADCi's operational activities, and his only interactions were supervisory in nature, overseei~g Mr. Mulozi as one of his I ' immediate reports. Additlonally, A2 received dri:lft Board 1papers from the ADC, which ! I. I I 11\JeUC OF ZAMe,,,. ~'2:· JUDICIARY. The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ...,,,. MtGISTRATECOURT_C:O~MPL,~ 91 he edited before forwarding them to the Commissioner Modernization, and he received I monthly and quarterly reports on units sold and funds collected. I 3.82. A2 concluded by noting that, contrary to Mr. Mulozi's testimony that no offers were given to bidders, proper offers were indeed provided. He further obse,:ved that Mr. Mulozi was found guilty of offences relating to the disposal proi:;ess and had subsequently been terminated from ZRA. 3.83. With regards to Mr. Bright Himuyamba, he explained that the memorandum P7a reflected his commitment to ensuring that the ADC followed proper procedures. When ' vehicles were identified by the ADC, A2 immediately sought approval from the Commissioner General, who was the controlling officer ~nd a Board member. I 3.84. Regarding Mr. Moses Malembeka, A2 denied asking him to pay for any vehicle on his • I behalf. He stated that Mr. Malembeka made the payment in his own name and ' ' obtained the receipt in his own name. A2 further clarified that Mr. MalEjm_beka's claim that he brought the documents to A2's office in January 2018 and found Ms. Pauline I • Mwanza as his secretary was false. At that time, A2's secretary was Ms. Esnart Mangwamazi.; Ms. Mwanza only joined his office in September 2019. Before Ms. I • Mwanza's transfer, A2 had two other secretaries, Ms. Lilian Bawa and Ms. Mwape , , I . Ngoma. 3.85. In response to allegations involving Mr. Benjamin Choba, A2 denied giving him any money, affirming that Mr Choba made the payment in his own name. , I 3.86. Regarding Ms. Tamara Mwale, A2 denied ever calling her to use her name to purchase a vehicle on his behalf. According to Ms. Mwale's testimony, her name had been used ' hy unknown persons, not A2. 3.87. A2 also addressed allegations concerning Alex Kabwita, den i he gave him any ~,,usuc OF ZAMs money through Mr. Mulozi. ,,: JuoIcIAR\ -1 MIAG ISTRATE COURT COMPLEIXf ~ ~i The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma O OCT 0 92 6 225 3.88. In relation to Ms. Emily Banda, A2 denied purchasing a vehicle for her. Similar to the case with Mr. Malembeka, Ms. Banda interacted with Ms. Pauline Mwanza when she came to A2's office to collect money; however, Ms. 1Mwanza had not joined the office until 2019. He further clarified that his relationship with Ms. Banda was strictly professional, and he never bought a vehicle for her or sold her one. The vehicle Ms. i Emily Banda claimed he purchased for her was valued at K10,000 by ZRA. According I to the schedule, the vehicle was a non-runner with a worn-out clutch system. A2 -() denied selling the vehicle, explaining that he did not have the legal capacity to do so, nor did he have Ms .1 Banda's NRC or the ZRA clearJnce letter, all of which were in her name. He further denied ever visiting her home in 2017 or driving the vehicle there, noting that the vehicle was unfit to be driven. 3.89. A2 also denied allegations made by Mr. Bwalya and Mr. Moyo from the Security ' Department. While the witnesses claimed their duties were to release ZRA assets in line with procedure, A2 clarified that Mr. Moyo had testified about receiving a call from a police officer regarding incomplete documentation at the Makeni yard. Despite this, the witnesses did not contact A2 to confirm wheth~r he had issued instructions, nor did they produce complete gate passes to show who collected the vehicles or which l'-C) officer signed off. /i.2 similarly denied instructing Mr. Martin Mugala to release any vehicles, noting that his statement in the prosecution bundle did not indicate such instructions. I 3.90. Regarding Ms. Suzyo Ngandwe, A2 denied her allegation'that he was responsible for advertising motor v~hicles, stating that this function fell within the mandate of the ADC under clause 3.4a. He also denied the arresting offiber's allegation that he personally gave officers vehicles, reaffirming that such responsibilities rested with the ADC I chairman. A2 further denied that asset disposal was' his res · "lit , clarifying that it ,,usUC OF ZAM8r . was clearly under the remit of Mr. Mulozi. He als ifflredifuecasemion-'1th nly one MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX ;,I~\ u6 ocr 2o~r~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 93 vehicle could appear on a gate pass, explaining that more than one asset could be included as provided for in the gate pass provisions. 3.91. A2 denied ever'giving Mr. Teddy Mulenga, or any other witness, money to purchase vehicles on his behalf. He explained that he was wholly dependent on his salary at the time and could not have raised such funds. He also denied being an ultimate beneficial owner of any of the vehicles mentioned by the arresting officer. 3.92. When cross-examined by c.ounsel for A1 , A2 denied that any request had been made ·Q to him by A1 as alleged by Mr. Mulozi. He also refuted claims that he had instructed Mr. Mulozi to omit certain vehicles from the advertisements or that he had provided him with a list of vehicles to be,excluded. A2 confirmed, however, that Mr. Mulozi had been charged with offences relating to the irregular disposal of the vehicles in question. 3.93. When cross-ejamined by the State, A2 confirmed that, as Director of the Administration Department, his department was responsible for procurement but was not tasked with overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Authority, nor did it have oversight over : all its properties and no department had such oversight. His department's oversight extend,ed to motor vehicles and furniture. He confirmed that , () the Authority had a Human Resource Department responsible for personnel matters, and that he supervised both Mr. Mulozi and the Transport Manager, Mr. Mugala. He acknowledged that A1 was overall in charge of the Authority. 3.94. A2 agreed that the disposal of assets was the responsibility of the ADC and that he was not its chairperson, statinb he realised this upon joining ZRA. Although he had heard a witness testify that he was chairperson, he maintained that this was incorrect. He was aware that under the Public Finance Act 2018, the Head of Human Resources chairs the ADC1 yet page 3 of the relevant document indicated that the Director Administration was chairperSOIJ, a provision he noted was inconsistent with the Act. E.l'UBLIC OF Z4fvre I'- JUDICIARY l,1 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus_Kaoma MAGISTRATE COURT CO_f.j_f'_i,_EX 94 3.95. He explained that, after ADC approval from the Board, assets were advertised, bids were submitted by interested persons, and successful bidders were required to make payment. He confirmed that gate passes originated from the Administration Department and that assessm'ent of vehicles prior to recommendation was undertaken . I by his department. Vehicles were sold on an "as is" basis. 3.96. A2 confirmed generating memorandum P7A, addressed to A1 , in which he sought approval for the vehicles listed in the attached schedule. This approval was sought not Q from the Board but from A 1, and it related to additional vehicles that had not yet been approved by the Board. He acknowledged that P78 was a memorandum from A1 to I him, approving his request. 3.97. A2 denied eveIr stating that the Commissioner Mode'rnisation supervised the ADC and turned down the suggestion that he had nothing to do with the disposal of motor vehicles. He denied that he a·uthored the memorandum· under the flying seal of Mr. ' Dingani Banda and Mr. Mulozi, the purported chair of the ADC, and further denied copying them in. He confirmed that the memora~dum concerned obsolete motor vehicles for disposal. 0 3.98. Regarding specific vehicles, A2 stated that ABM 8166 was not on P2, but appeared as number 18 on the 2018 disposal schedule, where it was recommended for disposal. ' I However, it did not appear on the Board's approved resolutions for 2018 (exhibit P3), and he could not confirm whether it was recommended by the ADC rather than the Board. He acknowledged that P21 was a gate pass bearirg his office's date stamp ' and that ABM 8166 was included on it. 3.99. He said that v'ehicle ASL 3753 could not be found on the 2018 advert (exhibit P4) or on adverts for 2017, 2019, or 2020. He acknowledged that Benjamin Chooba alleged he gave him money to deposit for this vehicle. Similarly • 6 was not on · n\:.1' Me . . r- . JUDICIARY "1 : MAGISTRATE COURT COIJPLEX I ---, - The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~ 95 H@r~ 0 C n0T OMr l,t:,:-:--.). the 2018 advert but appeared on a gate pass (exhibit P21) stamped by his office; it was the vehicle Alex Kabwika alleged he gave money to pay for. A2 confirmed that ABL 3751 appeared on the gate pass with his office's date stamp but was absent from the 2018 advert. Vehicle ABK 6092 also did not appear on the 2018 ,advert; this was the vehicle Emily alleged he took to her house. Vehicle ABF 8339 was not on the 2018 advert but was the vehicle Benjamin Chooba claimed he gave him money to buy. 3.100. He further confirmed that vehicle ABL 2465 was not on the 2018 advert, and ALC 9120 was absentfrom both the 2018 and 2019 adverts. ALC 9123 was not on the advert for 2019. ABM 8166 was not of the resolution of 2018 (P3). 3.101. A2 denied having selected any vehicles to be excluded .from disposal and further denied working with A1 to dispose of the 22 vehicles at issue in this case. He confirmed· that he had previously stated it was difficult to obtain documents from ZRA relating to the matter, and acknowledged that he had not produced proof that pccess to those documents was denied. Referring to P1, he stated that nowhere did it indicate it was a draft, but that it bore a ZRA date stamp. He explained that, according to page 3 of P1, the chairperson of the AOC was the Director Administration while the Manager Administration served as secretary. Apart from P1, he note~ there was no other policy before the court. I 3.102. In reference to P3, A2 stated that it was a memorandum dated 16th November 2017 ' from the Board Secretary informing him of the approval for disposal of motor vehicles, and that Mr. Mulozi's name did not appear on it. He confirmed that non,~ of the vehicles listed on P21 appeared in the adverts and denied having authorised their release. He noted, however, that according to the document, the release of the said vehicles had been approved. At the time, he was serving as Director Administratio~ and had heard evidence that one of those vehicles ended up at A1 ' s farm.· 1;_1'\J6UC 0: ZAMe1A, ~ JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE CQURT rOMPlX····· . r=-----nr.T ?O?" ,.~· The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~ ' ® """ i ii I n ~ nr. , ~ :.£~ 3.103. A2 maintained that all prosecution witnesses had lied against him, bu_t offered no explanation as to why they would single him out among all the people in ZRA. I 4.0. THE LAW 4.1. Section 2 of the Anti-Corruption Act No.3 of 2012 enacts as follows: property" includes any real or personal property, money, things in action or I . other intangible or incorporeal property, whether located in Zambia or elsewhere, and property of corresponding value in the absence of the original illegally acquired property whose value has been determined "public body" means the Government, any Ministry or department of the Government, the National: Assembly, the Judicature, a local authority, parastatal, board, council, authority, commission or other body appointed by I the Government, or established by, or under, any written law; I "public officer " means any person who is a member of, holds office in, is I employed in the s·ervice of, or performs a function for or provides a public I service for, a public body, whether such membership, office, service, function I or employment is permanent or temporary, appointed or elected, full-time or part I time, or paid or unpaid, and "public office" shall be construed accordingly; "public property" means property belonging to or under the control of, or consigned or due to, a publi~ body; Section 34(2)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act No.3 of 2012 enacts as follows: A person whose functions concern the administration, custody, management, receipt or use of any public revenue or public property or in whom any public revenue or public property is vested by virtue oft /$0 s . • , ~ JUDICIARY commits an offence ,f that person MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX ~-~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus:Kaoma ~~T-c ]~ 97 (b) willfully fails to comply with any law or applicable procedure or guideline relating to the procurement, allocation, sale or disposal of property, tendering of cont~acts, management of funds or incurring of public expenditure. 4.2. Section 41 of the Anti-Corruption Act No.3 of 2012 enacts as that- • I ' A person who is convicted of an offence under this Part, for which no penalty is provided, is liable (a) upon first conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding fourteen ! ' years; (b) upon a second or subsequent conviction, to imprisonment for a term of not less than five years but not exceeding fourteen year; and I (c) in addition to any other penalty imposed under this Act, to forfeiture to the State of any pecuniary resource, property; advantage, profit or gratification received in the commission of an offence under this Act. ! i a 4.3. The law. creates a legal duty for any person in position of responsibility over public ' ' ' revenue or property, whether in administration, custody, management, receipt, use, or I I where such property is vested in them by virtue bf their offiqe, to strictly follow all laws, procedures, and guidelines governing how thatproperty is handled in relation to: I • Procurement of goods and services, I • Allocation of property, • Sale or disposal of public assets, 1 • Tendering of contracts, ?-E.l'UBLIC OF Q\,\.f • Management of public funds, and JUDcIC IARY 8 1-1 I MAGISTRATE ._ 0URT COMPLEX fil • Incurring of public expenditure. O6 OCT 2025 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 98 • ,, I)... If such a person willfully fails to follow these legal requirements, they commit a criminal offence. 4.4. Turning to the offence, to prove the subject offence, the prosecution ought to establish the following elements: 1. The accused persons were persons: (a) whose functions concerned administration, custody, management, receipt or use of any public revenue or public property; or (b) in whom any public revenue or public property is vested by virtue of their I. positions or office 2. They failed to comply with the law o'r applicable procedure or guidelines relating to the procurement allocation, sale or disposal of property, tendering of contracts, management of funds or incurring of public expenditures; 3. The failure was willful 5.0. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF I, 5.1. The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution to establish this case and to do so beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no onus on the accused persons to prove their innocence, and any rea~onable doubt in my mind entitles them to an acquittal. I am . I . fortified by the Supreme Court in the case of THE PEOPLE v AUSTIN CHISANGU LIATO relying on the celebrated phrase of Viscount Sanky LC in the timeless case of : I WOOMINGTON V. OPP, the court stated that "We agree that the burden of proof in criminal proceedings lies and remains through out on the prosecution to prove its case I against the apcused person beyond reasqnable doubt" l'ueUC OF ZAMe1,1 5.2. Thus, I warn myself at the outset. l'-<c: JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX© :ti! O6 OCT 2025 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 99 CHIEF RESIDENT MAGISTRA~~ ,, <:,'r,.: · 0 . Box 30202.~ 6.0. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 1. The accused were employees of ZRA. A1 was the Commissioner General and A2 was the Director Administration; 2. ZRA was and is a public body; 3. The motor vehicles were public property; 4. The accused were public officers; 5. ZRA during the period in question disposed of the vehicles; r, 6. The disposal occurred during the time the accused held the mentioned offices; 7. Disposal of obsolete assets including motor vehicles ought to have been done in accordance with the asset disposal procedure; 8. The method used in disposal was internal tender. ' 7.0. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION 7.1. Whether, by virtue of their respective· positions, the accused persons exercised functions relating to the administration, custody, management, receipt, or use of public revenue or public property; and if so, whether they failed to comply with 'the law or applicable procedures governing the sale or disposal of the vehicles, and if such failure is established, whether it was willful. 8.0. ANA' LYSIS AND DECISION 8.1. Count 1: turning count 1, ii is alleged that the accused being Public Officers namely, Commissioner General and Director Administration respectively, at Zambia Revenue ' Authority, a public body, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure in the disposal of a Mitsubish Pajero bearing registration number ABK 6092, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. 8.2. In this matter, it is common ground that the accused were Commissioner General and Director Administration. It is not in dispute that ~ ~9,l;i6'.M4~er 'neral and JUOICl't~~u 7~ - ' MAGISTRATE COURi COMPLEX • The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma \ 100 m, n ~ nrT ?O?~ !!f't")~ Chief Executive Officer of the Zambia Revenue Authority as per s.19 of the Zambia Revenue Authority Act exercised overall oversight of the Authority, including its revenue collection functions and the management of its assets. He was· riot directly in charge of the vehicles but he was the overall custodian and manager of all ZRA assets. By virtue of his office, he was the ultim'ate accounting and controlling officer I responsible for ensuring that public property and revenue under the Authority were administered and disposed of in accordance with the law and applicable procedures. ' 8.3. A2, as Director Administration, had direct responsibility over the custody, management ' and disposal of the Authority's assets, including motor vehicles. Although A2 was not the final decision-maker, his functions were operational in nature and concerned the day-to-day management and execution of policy on public property. Even in cross examination, A2 confirmed that he was a custodian of the Authority's assets and that I identification for dispbsal was done by his department. ' 8.4. Accordingly, both A1 and A2 fall within the category of persons whose functions concerned the administration, custody, mana6ement, receipt or use of public revenue or public property, and in whom such property was vested by virtue of their respective offices. Therefore, I find accordingly. I 8.5. Turning to whether or not the accused failed to follow laid down procedure, it is paramount that the laid down procedure is settled at the outset. Mr Mulozi testified that disposal of obsolete assets was governed by the ZRA Asset Disposal Policy (P1 ), It which provided for ADC responsible for disposing of obsolete assets. outlines the procedure, the functions, specific duties, and composition of the committee, as well as the methods of disposal. He testified that the method of disposal in use at the material time was internal tender. He outlined the disposal process. According t6 the accused the Asset Disposal Policy in P1 was not the one in use at the materiai but the 2002 'i:.,,ueuc OF ZAMe; ~ JUDICIARY "I MAGISTRATE COURT CO&lPLEX 101 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma I L~..1 n ,.. nf\T "'"""" ,~ Policy. The accused argued that the policy before court was not applicable at the material time as it was a draft without legal effect, insisting instead that the 2002 Policy governed the matter. They highlighted some issues to show that it was a draft and it was non-existent in 2017 as it referred to the law enacted in 2018. Considering the fact that P1 references the·Public Finance Act No.1 of 2018, it goes to show that it was not applicable in 2017. 8.6. That notwithstanding, the core procedure for disposal of motor vehicles is not in dispute. Mr Mulozi and A2 outlined the detailed procedure of disposal which was being followed at the material time. The following was common ground: : 1. Identification of vehicles for disposal: i o Transport Unit (user department) compiles a list of vehicles based on criteria (age, mileage, condition). o Reserve prices proposed (with input from Transport Officer / Head Mechanic/ Transport & Security Manager). 2. Submission to ADC: o List submitted to ADC Secretary o ADC convenes a meeting, at the time chaired by Mr. Mulozi. o Committee verifies disposal criteria, approves reserve prices, and decides on disposal method. 3. Preparation of Board Paper: o Board paper,compiled. o Submitted to A2for vetting/forwarding. o Board paper submitted to Board Secretary for tabling before Board/Finance Committee. r.cPUBLIC OF <A,1.f 4. Board Approval JUDICIARY 81 -1 ,r•TRArr ~ <'QVBT "'"'" o Board approves proposed disposal. l(i), ~ O6 OCT 2025 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ' CHIEF RESIDeiir. ; '··· t::, 11111-\'I,..,.._ , .. ~1TJ: o Board Secretary communicates decision to A2. o A2 relays approval/authority to ADC Chairperson (Mr. Mulozi). 5. Advertisement Advert circulated to all ZRA staff (through Mr. Mulozi's email/intranet). o 6. Bidding & Evaluation tb Staff allowed bid.· o o Highest bidder· awarded; if non-payment, award goes to next bidder. ' ADC evaluates bids and announces results. o 0 o Offer letters issued lo successful bidders. I 7. Payment & Receipting o Winning bidders pay into ZRA bank account. o Finance Department issues official ZRA receipts after verification. 8. Clearance & Release of Vehicles . I o Proof of payment submitted to ADC Chairperson. o Clearance letters prepared by Administration/Transport Unit. Gate pass issued (with receipt attached) and app~oved by Administration. o ' o Gate pass used to collect vehicle. 9. Final Handover ' o Transport & Security Section issues change-of-ownership letter, hands over original white book and car keys. 1:.l'usuc z Ms OF 1 ' · I'- JUDICIARY -1 0 Security ~erifies gate pass and allows exit. MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLE®X blM "" 10. Documentation Flow U6 OCT 2025 i-... ,_,~--,-· CHIEF RESIDENT MAGISTRATE Gate pass in triplicate (buyer, security, admin). "•o ~'r· ·. Sox 30202, Ll.l5" 8.8. Both procedures describe the same structured disposal process, only 117.91 A2'~~ISID_o is mornconceptual, while Mr Mulozi' is more operational. Ther.~fore, whether-the document P1 was applicable at the time or not is neither here nor there be.c.aus.eJb.e_ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 103 I procedure which was applicable is not in dispute but some roles. What is at issue is not the source of the procedure, whether in law or in a particular document,but rather lhe laid-down procedure and both parties accepted the procedure as governing, 8.9. I wish to state from the outset that Mr Mulozi and some of witnesses are accomplices because according to the evidence on record which is not in dispute, Mr Mulozi and ' other witnesses participated in the disposal of the vehicles which disposal is alleged to have been irregular. Therefore, their evidence ought to be corroborated. ,,,.--- 8.10. In the case of Emmanuel Phiri and Others v The People, it was held inter alia that- (i) A Judge (or magistrate) sitting alone or with assessors must direct ' himself and the assessors, if any, as to the dangers of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice with the same care as he would direct a jury and his judgment must show that he has done I so. No particular form of words is necessary for such a direction. What i is nec~ssary is that the judgment show that the judge has applied his i mind to the particular dangers raised by the nature and the facts of the particular case before him. ' (ii) The judge should then examine the evidence and consider whether in the circumstances of the case those dangers have been excluded. The judge : ' should set out the reasons for his conclusions; his "mind upon the matter ' '' should be revealed". I 8.11. In the ca,se of Bornface Chauluka Tembo v The People, it was held thatThe 'evidence of an accomplice or of a person with a possible interest to ' exculpate himself needs to be corroborated at least by evidence of "something more" which, though not constitutin ation as a matter x:.?ueUC OF ZA.Me1. I ~ JUDICIARY ,q I ~ MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX ~ O6 OCT 2025 The People v Kingsley Chand.a and Callistus Kaoma 104 of strict law, yet satisfies the court that the danger that the accused is being falsely implicated has been excluded. 8.12. It is clear from the above authorities that the testimony of an accomplice being k someone involved in the commission of crime, holds significant evidenliary weight ' , I but is approached with cautio'n due to potential biases or motives to mislead. While an I ' accomplice's evidence ,is admissible, it is considered untrustworthy on its own and typically requires corroboration to support a conviction: . ' I 8.13. Corroboration involves independent evidence that confirms or supports the material • I aspects of the accomplice's testimony, !Hereby connecting the accused to the crime. . I This principle ensures that a conviction is 'not based solely on the potentially unreliable account of an accomplice. I 8.14. In the case of Chimbo and Ors v The People, ii was held inter alia that- (i) The evidence bf suspect witness cannot be cqrroborated by another suspect witness unless the witnesses are suspect for different reasons 8.13. The import from the above case is that the testimony of a suspect witness cannot be ' I corroborated by another suspect witness unless the reasons for suspecting each witness differ. 8.14. As to the character of corroboration, Nsofu v The People, decided that: I (a) Corroboration must not be equ~ted with indepen,dent'proof; it is not evidence which needs to be conclusive in itself. (b) Corroboration is independent evidence which ten1ds to confirm that the w~s is telling the truth when she says that the offence was committed and I \>-1,:PUBLIC OF Z<\,\,t th,[ at it was the accused who' com_m.1.!f _: '!_/:_J: I!. :__ .,uo,c,ARY 81,4 . . . T""'"'""'"'""' ~ 0 6 OCT 202~~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 05 (c) Where the evidence of a witness requires to be corroborated, it is nonetheless the evidence of the witness on which the conviction is based; the I I ; corroborative evidence serves to satisfy the Court that it is safe to rely on that of the witn1;ss. 8.15. In Machipisha Kombe v The People, it was held inter alia thatLaw is nbt static; it is developing. There need not now be a technical approach to corroboration. Evidence of something more, which though not:constituting corroboration as a matter of strict law, yet satisfies the Court that the danger of false implicatioh has been excluded, and it is safe to rely on t~e evidence . I implicating the accused. ' ' Odd coincidences constitute evidence of something more. They represent an additional piece of evidence which the Court is entitled to take into account. . . They provide a support of the evidence of a suspect witness or an accomplice or any oth~r witness whose evidence requires corroboration. This is the less I technical approach as to what constitutes corroboration. ' 'O 8.16. The impoh is that the law on corroboration is not static but developing. Courts are no 'i I ' longer bound to adopt a technical approach. What is required is the presence of something more, which, though not constituting corroboration in the strict legal sense, neverthel~ss satisfies the Court that the danger of false implication has bJen excluded, and that it is safe to rely on the evidence implicating the accused. I 8.17. Further, 6dd coincidences may constitute such evidence of something more. They provide an additional factor which the Court is entitled to take into accbunt, lending ' support to the evidence of a suspect witness, an ac . 1>- € 0 2 4Me , JUDICIARY 4 1e r;RATE COURT COMPLEX L!._6 OCT 2025 The People V Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma .. 106 whose testimony requires corroboration. This represents a less technical approach as to what amounts to corroboration. ~vd-,.b"1, 8.18. Turning to the disposal of motor vehicle ABK 6092, the evidence of Mr. Mulozi was ~"->~ Ji that in 2017, 29 vehicles were submitted and approved for disposal, one of which had ~ remained unsold from 2016. The advert published in that year reflected 24 vehicles, and although six were excluded, ABK 6092 was not among them. This vehicle appears ~ 1 M~j on the Schedule of vehicles recommended for disposal (P2) and was approved by the Board (P3). However, it does not appear in the 2017 advert. This evidence, corroborated by the documentary record, shows that the vehicle was approved for disposal but was not advertised in accordance with procedure .. --#·~ 8.19. Ms. Ngandu confirmed that the Board approved 29 vehicles in 2017, but seven were~rcJ.<- t-5°'-? ~t-, not advertised and were instead disposed of outside the established process. PW11, ~ J~°' Ms. Banda, testified that she ended up with ABK 6092, and a receipt (P20) was issued j "'-U L,..r ~ in her name. She admitted she never participated in the bidding process. yYhile hec::;--- evidence as to A2's direct involvement is suspect and therefore cannot be used.t P a{: ~ ,'s~ ~ corroborate Mr. Mulozi, the independent fact that the vehicle ,was ·registered in her~\- --- ----- name and ended up in her possession provides objective confirmation that the vehicle was irregularly disposed of. aa~ )\'?_ ~~..) 8.20. Although there is no direct evidence t~a~t "!_as A2 who facilitated the issuance_ofJhe recej_Qt in Ms. Banda's name, the drcumstances justify the inference that A2 pla_yed 1~ role. This is because he was the pi rector of Administration. and tlLe_su.bstantive ~r~ "' t--tti--AnC chairper~9~ of the_ADq, and approvals were communicated through him, as confirmed by Ms. Ngandu and the memoranda (P2) addressed to his office. ! ~ n~ r1J 4c,'iLJ 3r tcT~ ~E,l'UBLIC OF Z4i14 ~. 81 - r,- JUDICIARY -<1 M1_GISTRATE COURTC OMPLEX c~}.)-R..S "'- 1 1m f! ~ 4 ~A.R_ i71,,':0::'~." . The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 0 6 OCT 2025 According to Ms Banda, A2 bought and brought her the vehicle by virtue of their relationship, evidence disputed by A2. The fact that Ms Banda talked about the relationship with A2 after being quizzed by Counsel in cross examination and the fact that there is no reason for her to drag A2 who was her superior into a relationship, I i I have no difficulties in accepting her evidence that A2 bought the vehicle for her, took it to her home and later sold it when she indicated that she could not maintain it. The exclusion of ABK 6092 from the advert, coupled with its subsequent appearance in the name of Ms. Band~, who was closely connected to A2, makes it r~asonable to rely on Ms Banda's evidence that A2 was instrumental in its irregular disposal. 8.21. As regards A1 , the,evidence does not establish any direct involvement or knowledge of the irregular disposal of ABK 6092, notwithstanding his overall supervisory role. He therefore cannot be held liabl~ in respect of this vehicle. I 8.22. On the other hand, the circumstances, supported by the documentary evidence, establish that A2 failed to comply with the laid-down procedure in the disposal of ABK i 6092. 8.23. Turning to whether the failure was willful, It has always been a principle of common law that mens rea is an essential element in the commission of any criminal law offence. Unless a statute clearly or by implication rules out mens rea, a man should not be convicted unless he has a guilty mind. 8.24. In Chitambala Ntumba v Th1Q ueen, it was held that "mens rea had to be proved by the prosecution." 8.25. The mens rea of the subject offence is willful. ' 8.26. ~_aving found that the proced4re was no-t fo-llowed, can it be said in. the cjrcumsiances that the failure was willful? Both the Anti-Corruption Ac enal Code Act •c.l'L\l3LIC ZA.M81 ~ JUDICIARY C4 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX 108 I l~ .. ~.1 n ,., n/""\T 1\1\l'lr- provide no definition of the term "willful" for the purposes of this offence. Nor is there, to my knowledge, any authoritative definition within Zambian case law. Guidance, however, may be drawn from persuasive common law'authority. In the case of R v Senior, the term "willful!/ was defined to mean "deliberately a,:id intefltionally, not I by accident or inadvertence." 8.27. In Nabob Oil Co. v. United States, it was stated thatI "In some, penal statutes the word, willful means that the offense must be committed malevolently, with a bad purpose or an evil mi.nd. These offenses ' . ' ordin~rily 'involve moral turpitude' but in those statutes 'denouncing acts not in themselves wrong, such an evil purpose or criminal int'ent needn9t exist. It is sufficient if the act was deliberate, yoluntary and intentional as distinguished I from , one committed ·t hrough 1ina,dvertence, accidentally or by ordinary -negligence." I . ' ' I 8.28. The Black's Law Dictionary defines willfully as 'voluntary and intentibnal but not necessarily malicious' it goes further that' the word 'wilful'or 'willfully' when used ' in the' defI inition of a crime, it has been said time and ,again, means only intentionally and purposely as distfr1guished from accidentally ,or negligently and d,oes not require any impropriety ... i I I 8.29. The Wex Legal Dictionary states that: , I I ' In the context of criminal law, "the word 'willful' when used in criminal statutes I ' with respect to proscribed conduct relates to an act or omission which is done ' intent ' i onal ' l y, deliberately or des' ignedly, as distinguish~d from an act or omission done accidentally, inadvert,ently, or innocently." 1 1 I , 8.30. The import is that willfully connotes doing something deliberately and1 on purpose, rathet than' by accident 9r negligen~e. In criminal ~.fil\fil~~lls ily imply , MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX .I~ ma I The People v Kingsley Chanda and Ca_llistus Kao ~ 109 •~+- n nr.T · ?n?5 that the act was motivated by bad intent (malice), but rather that the person knowingly and intentionally carried it out. It follows, therefore, that for any act under scrutiny to be regarded as willful, it must have been done by thr offender deliberately, purposely, or intentionally, by design, and not accidentally, negligently, or inadvertently. 8.31. In this matter, A2 did not merely overlook the prescribed procedure, he took active and deliberate steps, he provided Ms. Banda with funds despite her not having participated I in the bidding process, and later sold the vehicle o~ her behalf. These were positive ' acts, not omissions, and are inconsistent with accident or inadvertence. I 8.32. The omission of motor vehicle ABK 6092 from the advert, despite its approval for disposal by the Board, when taken together with A2's role in reviewing and marking vehicles for exclusion, demonstrates deliberate knowledge and control over the process. The placement of the vehicle in Ms. Banda's name, coupled with her personal relationship with A2, shows that the transaction directly benefitted her through his ' . purposeful inte'rvention. These circumstances, viewed collectively, exclude accident or negligence and ~stablish willful conduct. 8.33. I therefore find that the failure to comply with the laid-down procedure in the disposal 0 of ABK 6092 was willful on the part of A2. ' ' I ( 8.34. Accordingly, the charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against A1 , and I acquit ~im of Courit 1. However, the offence has been proved beyond reasonable ' ' doubt against A2. I therefore find him guilty of willful failure lo comply with applicable procedure contrary' to Section 34(2)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012 and I convict him of Cou~t 1. 8.35. Count 2: Turning to Count 2, the allegation is that the accused persons, willfully failed to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the · I of a Mitsubishi i:'?l.)SUC F ZAMei4 Pajero bearing registration number ABF 8339, the peny Jli\Xi~RY MIAGI STRATE COURT COMPLE\X( ©. ,ia O6 OCT 2025 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 10 8.36. The 2017 schedule of vehicles for disposal (Exhibit P2) shows that ABF 8339 was ~ecommended for disposal. The extract rrsolution of the Finance Committee held on 27th October 2017 also recommended disposal, which was subsequently approved by the Governing Board through its resolution of 16th November 2017 (Exhibit P3). The vehicle was among those advertised on 23rd November 2Q17 as item number 1. This demonstrates that disposal of the vehicle was duly authorised and advertised in accordance with procedure. 8.37. PW6, Benjamin Choba, testified that in 2018 he was directed by A2 to deposit ~ K9,000.00 for the purchase of the said v~hi~le. He was given banking details by A2 ~ qnd instructed to make the deposit at ZA~ACO. It was his evidence that he did not bid ,-fo &2f"' for the vehicle and had no personal interest in purchasing it. He only came to learn ':>; \-- that the vehicle had been registered in his name in 2022 when he was interviewed by ~":J . ' sl Internal Affairs, evidence not contested. ~e testified that he was surprised to see the 1J l,.;;k deposit slip and the gate pass because, accotding to him, being sent to deposit ITI_Q0!'JY. ~ cl..'..e k,\ -"'-0'-r lj:'as one of his duties as a general worker, eviden~§_a[~Q IJO(QQ0.stested. When asked &r)'!,~ if he had evidence to prove that A2 gave hin-1 the money, he stated that he had none ¼,i-1 I Y\ ' I ' but maintained that the money he deposi)ed was provided to him by A2, and that he (\~ ~ 0 acted purely on A2's instructions. ' . ' ' 8.38. A2 denied giving Mr. Choba money. However, I see no reason why a general worker would choose to falsely implicate his superior. The manner in which Mr. Choba ,1..... described the events was consistent, and the fact that he had no knowledge that he was purchasing a vehicle under his name further supports his credibility. His evidence is therefore not suspect and ~eed not be corroborated. 8.39. The arresting officer testified that the ZRA Occurrence Book from the Makeni yard showed that ABF 8339 was collected by one Davis Mulenga. This is supported by the said book P35 which tends 16 corroborat~ Mr Choba'~~~e ian'fll~ JUDICIARY I l MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The Peop_le v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 111 n ,48\ . ~~,I C (\f'T ~MC he was depositing the money. This supports the conclusion that although Mr. Choba deposited • money, the vehicle was ultimately collected by another person, underscoring that the transaction did not follow the approved procedure'. I 8.40. With respect to A_1, the only evidence linking him to the vehicle is PW1 's statement I , that A~, told him that A1 was aware of the arrangement. This was an out of court statement whose alleged maker in A2 did not repeat in court. This piece of evidence iniplica)ing'A 1 who is not the maker cannot be relied on as evidence against him. On ' . this, an'l fortified by the authority in the case of Shamwana and 7 Others v The I People. Referring1 to the case of R v Rudd, it was stated that- · . I although an out-of-court statement made in the absence of the defendant by one of his cd-defen_dants cannot be ~vidence against the former, unless he I expressly:or by implication adopts the statement as his own, if a co-defendant goes into the. witness box and gives _evidence in the course of a joint trail, then, what he says becomes evidence for all the purposes of the case, including the purpose o'f being evidence against his co-defendants. ', I 8.41 In this case, the out-of-court statement was made by A2 to Mr. Mulozi, alleging that I I A1 , as their superior, was aware of the proposal for externals to benefit. Such a I • statement can.not be used as evidence against A1 unless it was expressly or impliedly ' . I adopted by him, or unless A2 repeated it under oath in court. A2 did not himself state I ' in his testimony th'at A1 was aware of the transaction. Consequently, what Mr. Mulozi and the arresting officer relayed is admissible, if at all, only against A2, but it cannot be relied upo~ as 1evidence against A1 . It would therefore be unsafe to convict A1 on ' that basis. I accordingly find that the State has not discharged its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that A1 willfully failed to comply with the proc~dure. I I I 8.42. With respect to A2, the evidence is clear that he instructed · te, Mr. Choba, i 'cpUBLIC OF 2AM I'- JUDICIARY -1 I / 1 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma • ~ 12 ~ll!l!i U fi OCT ?n?i; ~ to deposit money in circumstances inconsistent with the proper procedure. The use of a subordinate who had no interest in the vehicle, the registration of the vehicle in Mr. Choba's name, and its ultimate collection by another person all demonstrate a deliberate circumvention of the process. A2 was fully aware of the correct procedure yet acted to achieve an outcome contrary to it. The element of willfulness is therefore established. 8.43. Accordingly, I find that the offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against A1 , who is acquitted of this count. However, I find that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt against A2. I therefore convict A2 .on Count 2. 8.44. count 3: Turning to Count 3, it is alleged that the accused persons willfully failed to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed of a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABF 3858, the property of the.Zambia Revenue Authority. I 8.45. None of the witnesses testified in relation to this vehicle. A review of the schedule of vehicles identified for disposal, togethef with the extract resolutions of the Board, does not reveal that this particular vehicle wa? identified or approved for disposal. What appears in the record, and bears a similar registration number, is ABV 3858, which is a Nissan Tiida. 8.46. 11 is therefore evident that the State did not lead evidence in support of this count. In the absence of such evidence, I find that the offence of willful failure to comply with the applicable procedure, within the meaning of Section 34(2)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012, has not been proved beyond reaspnable doubt. I 8.47. Accordingly, I find the accused persons not guilty and acquit them of Count 3. 8.48. Count 4: Turning to Count 4, it is alleged that the accused willfully failed to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal · the manner . '2.1'\)6 I 4M13 ~ JUDICIARY · 1-'1 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX they disposed of a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABL 1533, the property of the Zambia Revenue Authority. 8.49. None of the witnesses testified in relation to this vehicle. A review of the schedule of I vehicles identified for disposal, together with the extract resolutions of the Board, does not indicate that this vehicle was identified .or approved for disposal. The records instead show a vehicle bearing a similar reg.istration number, ABL 1533, which is a i Nissan H/B. ~Q 8.50. It is therefore clear that the State did not lead evidence in support of this count. In the absence of such evidence, I find that the offence of willful failure to comply with the applicable procedure, within the meaning of Section 34(2)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. :Accordingly, I find the accused persons not guilty and acquit them of Count 4. . i 8.51. Count 5: Turning to count 5, it is alleged that the accused did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner ' I they disposed of a Mitsubish Pajero bearing registration number ABL 6927, the : . property of Zambia Revenue Authority. rC) I ' 8.52. It was Mr Mulozi's evidence that in 2017, 29 venicles were submiited and approved for disposal, one of which had remained unsold from 2016. The advert published in I that year reflected 24 vehicles, and although 6 were excluded, Nissan Hardbody, ABL ' I 6927 was not' among them. The documents show ,that Nissan Hardbody, ABL 6927 was identified and approved f,or disposal and not a Mitsubishi Pajero ABL 6927 5.53. This count however pertains a Mitsubishi Pajero aAd None of th.e witnesses testified ' in relation to this vehicle. It is therefore clear that the State did not lead evidence in support of this count. In the absence of such evidence, I find that the offe~ce of willful I ' failure to comply with the applicable procedure, with.in ? ~ 0111 ion 34(2)(b) · ~,:: JUDICIARY 1. ~· ' ' MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma · \ 114 n nr.T 2025 l1'r)l .~.i i; of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5.54. Accordingly, I find the accused persons not guilty and acquit them of Count 5. 5.55. Count 6: Turning to count 6, the allegation is that the accused did willfully fail to comply with the; applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of a Nissan Tiida, registration number ABV 5918, the property of ZRA. 5.56. According to Mr Mulozi, in 2017, 29 vehicles were submitted for disposal and the total number ;of vehicles for disposal in 2017 was 3.0. However, only 24 were advertised, following the exclusion of 6 vehicles. Ms Suzyo Ngandu confirmed the number of , I vehicles approved but stated that 7 of the vehicles were not advertised but were sold not through the recommended process. Mr Mulozi stated that A2 gave him back the . I ·. advert with some vehicles marked for exclusion, which included the Nissan Tiida ABV 5918. 5.57. The 2017 schedule of vehicles (Exhibit P2) lists the Nissan Tiida as item number 13, and the Board approval (Exhibit P3) confirms it was i duly authorised for disposal. However, the vehicle does not appear on the 2017 advertisement. ihis corroborates fJ Mr Mulozi's evidence that the vehicle was excluded from the advert. 5.58. The applicable procedure for disposal of the vehicles required that all vehicles approved for disposal be advertised, thereby subjecting them to the bidding process, and subsequently awarding them to the highest bidder. The evidence shows that the Nissan Tiida ABV 5918, though_ duly approved for disposal, was excluded from the ' advert. isement. It was later collected without being subjected to bidding. · 5.59 .. From ,the evidence, the identity of the purchaser of the vehicle cannot be established from the evidence. However, the arresting officer testified that the ZRA Makeni Yard Occurrence Book (Exhibit P35) records that the ve · . l3s188fe~ February J~'f"""' · : JUD\t\11 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma \ \ ~• 115 fii'4-,., , -::/!,_ • n n nr, T OMC • 2018 by one Allen Simpokolwe. This entry is confirmed both by the occurrence book and Mr. Simpokolwe himself, who testified that he collected vehicles from ZRA on the instructions of a Mr. Mpundu. While he could not recall the specific registration numbers of the vehicles collected, he stated that some of thein were later branded with PF insignia. This evidence also confirms that the said vehitle was disposed of. 5.60. Mr. Mulozi further testified that A2 informed him that the exclusion of vehicles from the advertisement was intended to benefit non-staff, specifically for the benefit of the Pf, and that A1 was aware of this arrangement. Although Mr. Mulozi's evidence was challenged in cross-examination, he remained consistent. His kccount finds support in other testimony, notably that of Mr. Chooba, whose evidenc~ I have already found not to be suspect, and who stated that A2 provided him with furids to pay for vehicles that had not been subjected to bidding. Further corrobora'tion is found in the inconsistency between the Board-approved schedule (Exhibits P2 and P3) and the published advertisement; in Ms. Ngandu's testimony regarding the involvement of externals; and in Mr. Simpokolwe's evi,dence that some of the vehicles he collected later bore PF branding. Taken together, these independent strands of evidence confirm that vehicles were deliberately excluded from the advertisement and were P instead directed to external persons at the instruction of A2. 5.61. With respect to A1 , the only evidence linking him is Mr Mulozi's evidence that A2 told him that A1 was aware of the arrangement. The is an out of court statement by a co accused which A2 did not repeat of A1 acknowledge. In the absehce of other evidence to show that A1 was indeed aware, it would be unsafe to convict on that basis. The State has therefore not discharged its byrden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that A1 willfully failed to comply with the procedure. 5.62. As for A2, the evidence against him is direct and corroborated. Mr Mulozi's testimony, ef8™B~J\~t:omm-..w supported by the documentary exhibits and co MIAG ISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The Peoplev Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma .~. n _ ~~- ! ____ ,~ 116 establishes that A2 deliberately excluded the vehicle from the advert, ensuring that it was not disposed of through the prescribed procedure. A2 was well aware of the I proper procedure, yet took calculated steps to circumvent ii for the benefit of externals. This amounts to willful failure to comply with the applicable procedure within the i meaning of Section 34(2)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012. 5.63. I accordingly find that the offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against '' 'I Kingsley Chanda. He is acquitted of this count but the offence is proved beyond ,,.--0 ' reasonable doubt against Callistus Kaoma. He is convicted on Count 6. ' ' 5.64. Count 7: Turning to Count 7, ,the allegation is that the accused did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of a Toyota Coro.Ila bearing registration number ABZ 7209, the property of the Zambia Revenue I I Authority. I 5.67. The said vehicle does not appear on the schedule of vehicles recommended for I . disposal, the approved list, or any of the advertisements. Further, no witness led I . evidence in relation to this vehicle. In the circumstances, I find that Count 7 has not I • been proved beyond reasonable dou_bt. I accordingly find the accused persons not f) guilty of this charge and acquit them. . . I ! . 5.68. Count 8: Turning to Count 8, it is alleged that the accused did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of a Mitsubish Pajero bearing registration number ABL 3850, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. ' I 5.69. It was Mr Mulozi's evidence that the 2018 schedule had 19 vehicles and the board ! approved 14 vehicles. The advert had 13 vehicles and 3 vehicles were excluded I . among them the Mitsubishi Pajero, ABL 3850. This evidence is corroborated by Ms. I . I • Suzyo Ngand~ who stated that in 2018, the board approved 14 vehicles for sale, of which 3 were sold to non-members of staff. One of t as Derek 1.: f?-"c-'' JUDICIARY /-4 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma · ~. I .. --- ---- 1~ ' 17 Mpundu, who did not pay for the vehicle and for whom no payment record could be found. The gate pass (P21) shows that it was issued to Derrick Mpundu and that he was allowed to exit ZRA premises with 6 vehicles, Mitsubishi Pajero, ABL 3850 among them. 5. 70. The schedule for recommended vehicles for immediate disposal (P2) reveals that the said vehicle was recommended for disposal as item No. 14 and approved by the board for disposal according to Exhibit 'p3. However, the vehicle does not appear on the advert for vehicles approved for di'sposal for 2018. This evidence further corroborates Mr Mulozi and Ms Suzyo Ngandu's evidence. The vehicle was not advertised which means that it was not subjected to bidding and not offered to the highest bidder. 5.71. There is no evidence of the identity of the person who purchased the vehicle but what is clear is that the vehicle was disposed of. I say so because the evidence shows that the vehicle was approved for disp' osal by the governing board and a gate pass was issued to Derrick Mpundu to exit ZRA with the vehicle, which Mr Simpokolwe removed at the instruction of Mr Derrick Mpundu. Though the records of sale were not found as stated by Ms. Suzyo Ngandu, the evidence on record reveals that the said vehicle was disposed of and that the laid down procedure was not followed in its disposal. p 5.72. Having established that procedure was not followed, can it then be said that the accused failed to follow the procedure? with regard to A1 , the sole evidence connecting him is the testimony of Mr Mulozi, who stated that A2 informed him that A1 was aware of the arrangement, which I have already found was an out of court statement. In the absence of any other evidence showing that indeed A1 was aware, it would be unsafe to base a conviction upon it. Consequently, the State has not discharged its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that A1 willfully failed to 1;.?Ue,LIC OF ZAMBi comply with the prescribed procedure. ?-: JUDICIARY ~ MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX I Jii/ ~ 6 OCT 2025 ,~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma .._ -~ CHIEF RESIDENT MAGISTRATE 5.73. As for A2, It was Mr Mulozi's testimony that A2 was the one who was excluding the vehicles from the advert and told him that the PF party needed vehicles for mobilisation. His evidence is corroborated by the gate pass (P21 ). According to Mr. Bwalya and Mr Mulozi, the practice at ZRA was that for vehicles disposed of through internal tender, only one vehicle was to b,e allo?at~d td a staff member, and this would ordinarily be reflected on the gate pass. He testified that his subordinate, Mr. Emmanuel Mayo, drew his attention to a gate pJss originating from the office of the Director of Administration which bore irregularities'. Upon·examining the document, Mr. Bwalya confirmed that it contained six vehicles, namely, four Mitsubishi Pajeros, a single-cab Toyota Hilux, and a Nissan Caravan 1minibus, all in the name of Derrick Mpundu. Further inquiry revealed that rvJpundu was not a member of staff, evidence not contested. 5.74. Faced with this anomaly, Mr. Bwalya escalated the matter to his supervisor, Mr. I Mug ala Martin, the Trans port and Security Manager. Mr. Mug ala observed that the I document bore the signature of the Director of Administration, A2, and advised that in light of this, the authority of the Director oyerrode any objection the officers might have. He instructed them to proceed with the release but to retain a copy for audit purposes. Th'e vehicles were accordingly released., I . • I 5.75. Mr. Mayo corroborated this account. He 'explained that the gate pass was unusual in two respects: firstly, ii bore the name of an individual who was not on the Authority's staff list; and secondly, it listed six vehicles under one buyer, contrary to the advertised restriction that a member of staff could only acquite one vehicle. He stated that ii was this irregularity that prompted him to refer the matter lb his superior, Mr. Bwalya. : I • 5.76. Both Mr. _Bwalya and Mr. Mayo acknowledge9 that there was no written P,Qllg'l_ re~trictin ass to one vehicle. However, the 13 19'. ractice and · JUDICIARY - MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX .ii (i:). U 6 OCT 2025 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 119 I by the internal tender procedure, only one vehicle could be sold to a staff member. It was against this background that the gate pass, P21, struck them as irregular. 5.77. It is noteworthy that alihough there .is no evidence on record that the vehicles in question were sold to non-staff members, the evidence is clear that they were released to Derrick Mpundu, who was not an employee of the Authority. The signature on the ' gate pass was identified by the witnesses as that of A2 , even though his name did not appe9r thereon, evidence not challenged. The fact that the vehicles were subsequently seen branded with PF insignia, as testified to by Mr. Simpokolwe, further ' . reinforces the inference that they had been diverted away from the intended internal ' . disposal process. I ; 5.78. In my view, the presence of A2's signature on the gate pass was decisive. The ' subordinate officers acted on it despite recognising the irregularity, precisely because they were confident of its authenticity and authority. This, taken together with the circumstances of the rel.ease to a non-staff member and the subsequent appearance . I of the vehicles outside ZRA's control, corroborates Mr. Mulozi's testimony implicating A2 in the irregular disposal. 5. 79. The testimony of Mr Mulozi, supported by documentary evidence and reinforced by D the other witnesses, demonstrates that A2 deliberately excluded the vehicle from the I advertisement, thereby ensuring that it was not disposed of in accordance with the i • prescri.bed procedure. A2 was fully aware of the proper procedure yet took calculated ' I I steps to circumvent it for the benefit of persons external to the institution. Such conduct constitutes a willful failure to comply with the applicable procedure. 5.80. 1· accordingly find that the offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against ' • I . Kingsley Chanda. He is acquitted of this count but the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt against Callistus Kaoma. He is convi*cted o F ZAMs .. , · ~<;:: JUDICIARY /,4 MAGISTRATE COURT rnM ~ 2025 -~ The Peop.le v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 5.81. Count 9: Turning to Count 9, it is alleged that the accused did willfully fail to comply wi,th the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of a Nissan Microbus bearing registration number ABP 6406, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. 5.82. The evidence of Mr Mulozi was that in the 2017 tender, following Board approval, he prepared the advert and submitted it to A2 for review; as was standard practice before circulation. A2 excluded some vehicles from the advertisement, and indicated that he would check with the Transport Unit to identify those in better condition. The 2018 process followed the ~ame pattern. Although 14 ~ehicles had been approved for disposal by the Board, dnly 13 were published in the advert. The Nissan Microbus ABP 6406 was among the excluded ones. This evict1ence was corroborated by Ms Ngandu, who confirmed that in 2018 the Board approved 14 vehicles, but only 13 appeared in the advert, and 3 vehicles were ultimately sold to non-staff members. One of the recipients was Derek Mpundu, who did not pay for the vehicle, and for whom no payment record was fdund. The gate pass (P21) shows that he was nevertheless allowed to exit with several vehicles, including ABP 6406. 8.83. T~e schedule for recommended vehicles for_ disposal (P2) clearly lists the Nissan Microbus ABP 6406, and the Board minutes (P3) evidence its approval. Its omission : I . from the advert provides objective corroboration of Mr Mulozi's testimony that A2 ! instructed him to exclude vehicles. I 8.84. Further, Mr Kabwiku testified that he was given details of the Nissan Microbus ABP 6406 and instructed to deposit K25,000.00 into a ZRA ZANA CO account. He produced receipt P15 issued in his name, whiGh he later handed over to A2. He further stated that A2 told him not to worry about the change of ownership as it would be handled internally since the vehicle was intended for the Patr[otic Front. £?UBLIC OF ZA.f,,fe ,,: JUDICIARY 4 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX 0, I - 0 6 OCT 2025 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 121 ('uu::r:: nrl"'rr-..-., ...... _. 8.85. I am mindful of the fact that Mr Kabwiku is also a suspect witnesses, having knowingly participated in actions that were contrary to procedure. Like Mr Mulozi's testimony, his ' evidence requires corroboration. Such corroboration is available in .the form of: (i) the inconsistency between the Board-pp'proved schedule (P2, P3) and the published advert; (ii) receipt P15 issued in Kabwiku's name despite him not being a bidder; (iii) ' : the gate pass P21 issued to Derek Mpundu for multiple vehicles; (iv) Ms Ngandu's testimony regarding the involvemen,t of externals; and (v) Mr Simpokolwe's evidence that he collected vehicles from ZRA iat the instruction of Mr Derrick Mpundu and some of the vehicles later bore PF branding. Further the fact that this unus,ual gate pass was signed by A2. These pieces of independent evidence converge to confirm that vehicles were deliberately excluded from the advert and channelled to externals without adhering to procedure. 8.86. As regards A2's defence, he denied excluding the vehicle from the advert or giving Mr Kabwiku money. However, the manner in which adverts were processed, as described by Mr Mulozi, places A2 in a supervisory position where he reviewed and approved adverts before circulation. His specific instructions to exclude certain vehicles, coupled I with the proven omission of ABP 6406, directly link him to the irregularity. The I (') improbability of Mr Kabwiku inserting himselfiinto the process, paying. K25,000.00, and (V relinquishing the receipt without ,a personal claim, strongly support? his account that he acted on A2's instructions. T_he corroborative documents (P2, P3, P15, P21) and witness testimonies render A2's denial implausible. More so, the corroborative evidence also confirms Mr Mulozi's, Mr Kabwiku's and other witnesses' accounts that A2 was at the Centre of the irregular disposal of vehicles including this one. 1 8.87. As regards A1 , the only evidence linki~g him is Mr Mulozi's stateme'nt that A2 told him A1 was aware, which cannot be relied on in the absence of other evidence to support I \?Ul3LIC OF ZA1.-tei ~I:;: JUDICIARY ' :.q MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX I I~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 122 Jit OR OCT 2025 the position, this cannot safely found a conviction. The State has therefore not proved beyond reasonable doubt that A1 wilfully failed to comply with the procedure. 8.88. As for A2, the evidence demonstrates that he deliberately instructed the exclusion of vehicles from the advert, facilitated their disposal through proxies such as Mr Kabwiku, and ensured their diversion to externals, notwith~tanding his knowledge of the correct procedure. His conduct therefore constitutes a wilful failwe to comply with the applicable procedure within the meaning of Section 34(2)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012. I 8.89. I accordingly acquit Kingsley Chanda of Count 9 and convict Callistus Kaoma. 8.90. Count 10: Turning to count 10, ii is alleged that the accused, did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABP 8128, the property of the Zambia Revenue Authority. 8.91. According to Mr Mulozi, the 2018 schedule co~tained 19 vehicles, out of which the Board approved 14 for disposal. The advert tha\ was eventually published, however, contained only 13 vehicles and excluded, among others, the Mitsubishi Pajero ABP 8128. This account is supported by Ms Ngandu, who confirmed that although the Board had approved 14 vehicles for disposal, only 13 appeared in the advert, and further confirmed that 3 vehicles were sold to non-staff members. One of the recipients I was Derek Mpundu, in respect of whom no payment record was produced, yet the gate pass (P21) demonstrates that he was permitted to exit with several vehicles, including the Mitsubishi Pajero ABP 8128. The schedule of recommended vehicles (P2) lists this vehicle, and the Board minutes (P3) confirm its approval for disposal. Taken together, this evidence shows both that the vehicle was in fact disposed of and that it was improperly excluded from the advert. . 1;.1>UBLIC OF ZAMe I>- JUDICIARY -'1 MAGISTRATE COURT "'1MPLEX ~-~ L. -2025 · -~) The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma u Ul,I .!? CHIEF R2: .. ac.·, 8.92. The omission of ABP 8128 from the published advert provides objective corroboration of Mr Mulozi's testimony that A2 instructed him to exclude certain vehicles. This is further supported by: (i) the inconsistency between the Board-approved schedule (P2, P3) and the advert; (ii) the gate pass P21 issued to Derek Mpundu which was considered irregular; (iii) Ms Ngandu's testimony regarding involvement of externals; I and (iv) Mr Simpokolwe's evidence that some of the vehicles ultimately bore PF I branding and A2's signature on the said gate pass. These independent strands of evidence converge to confirm that vehicles were deliberately excluded from the advert ' and diverted to non-staff members. , 8.93. As regards A2's defence, he denied excluding the vehicle from the advert. ~_91'1'ever, the evidence shows that adverts prepared by Mr Mulozi were always submitted to A2 for review before circulation, and it was at this stage that A2 gave instructions on which vehicles should be excluded. The proven omission of ABP 8128 from the advert, notwithstanding its inclusion in the Board-approved schedule, is consistent with Mr Mulozi's testimony and inconsistent with A2's denial. The corroborative documents and testimonies already highlighted therefore displace his defence and directly link him to the irregularity. rj:J 8.94. As for A1 , the only evidence connecting him to this count is Mr Mulozi's evidence that Mr A2 had told him A1 was aware of the arrangement. As already found, this evidence alone cannot safely found a conviction. The State has thus not proved beyond reasonable doubt that A1 wilfully failed to comply with the applicable procedure. 8.95. In respect of A2, the corroborated evidence establishes that he deliberately instructed I the exclusion of approved vehicles from the advert and facilitated their irregular disposal to externals. This conduct constitutes a wilful failure to comply with the applicable procedure within the meaning of Section 34(2)(b) of the ·_ orruption Act l.)6UC OF ZAMs, No. 3 of 2012. <c-,:S' , 1uo1c1ARY, MAGISTRATE C0\)3,T r,ri,.I_E!;x _ _ ~~ ~ 2025 ...~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 8.96. I accordingly acquit Kingsley Chanda of Count 10 and convict Callistus Kaoma. 8.97. Counts 11 and 12: Since the evidence relating to Counts 11 and 12 is materially the same, I will consider them together. In these counts, it is alleged that the accused willfully failed to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of two motor vehicles, namely a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABR 9683 (Count 11) and a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABL 3751 (Count 12), bbth the property of the Zambia Revenue,Authority. 8.98. The 2018 schedule of vehicles (Exhibit P2) shows that ABR 9683 was recommended I for disposal as item number 16, while ABL 3751 was recommended as item number 19. However, the Board approvals produced in evidence do not include either of these ' vehicles, and neither appears in the 2018 advertisement. What is clear, however, is that both vehicles were in fact disposed of and released from ZRA premises through gate passes (P21) issued in the name of Derrick Mpundu. 8.99. Mr. Mulozi testified that the 2018 schedule contained 19 vehicles, of which 14 were approved by the Board, while 13 were advertised. He identified the three vehicles I excluded from the advertisement, and neither ABR 9683 nor ABL 3751 was among I them. Ms. Ngandu further testified that in 201 ~. three vehicles were allocated to nonmembers of staff, including Derrick Mpundu, and that no payment record was traceable for the vehicles he obtained. 8.100. The evidence on record clearly shows that both vehicles were not advertised yet were disposed of. Their removal from ZRA premises!js evidenced by the gate passes issued to Derrick Mpundu. It follows that the vehicles were disposed of without advertisement, I contrary to the procedure requiring disposal through tender and allocation to the I highest bidder. I find accordingly. ~r\JBLIC OF ZAMa ,>.: JUDICIARY /-4 ~l Ii© MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma O6 OCT 2025 125 8.101. The issuance of gate passes in the name of Derrick Mpundu demonstrates that the vehicles were irregularly dealt with, in the same manner as other vehicles on the 2018 schedule. The evidence on record overwhelmingly corroborates A2's involvement, and I have already found that his failure was willful. With respect to A1 , however, there is nb evidence on which a conviction can safely be founded. . . I I ' 8.102. I accordingly acquit .Kingsley Chanda on Counts 11 and 12 and convict Callistus Kaoma on both counts. ,--0 8.103. Count 13: Turning to the Count, the allegation is that the accused did willfully fail to : comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of a motor vehicle, namely Mitsubishi Pajero registration number ABM 8166, the property of the Zambia Revenue Authority. 8.104. The 2018 disposal schedule reflected this vehicle as item number 18, recommended for disposal. The undisputed evidence is that the Board approved 14 vehicles for disposal, yet only 13 were advertised. ABM 8166 was not one of those advertised. The exclusion of this vehicle from the advertisement, despite having been approved, ' constituted a clear departure from the laid down procedure which required advertisement and competitive bidding. According to Mr. Mulozi and as it has been ' already established, such exclusions were at the instance of A2, thereby placing him I ai the centre of the irregularity. 8.105. The testimony of Mr. Mulenga further reveals how the disposal was carried out outside procedure. He stated that on 23rd No,vember 2018, Mr. Mulozi informed him that A2 had provided the sum of K31,200.00 for the purchase of ABM 8166, gave him a ZRA account number into which he deposited the money, and he was issued with a till slip cbnfirming1 the transaction. These wer~ later handed to Mr. Mulozi, who said he would deliver them to A2. Importantly, Mr. Mulenga stated that transaction l · ? /,4 ~l:c JUDICIARY MAGIS1RA1E COURT coMPL,sX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma \ \~ 26 ,{it 0 6 OCT 2025 ltt)) occurred, the tender process had already closed. He therefore did not apply or compete for the vehicle as a genuine bidder. This evidence shows that the disposal was orchestrated by A2 outside the established procedure. ' 8.106. As already established, Mr Mulozi's testimony that A2 instructed him to exclude certain vehicles and A2's involvement in the irregular disposal has been corroborated by: (i) the inconsistency between the Board approval and the advert; (ii) the gate pass P21 issued to Derek Mpundu which was irregular; Mr Simpokolwe's removal of the vehicles which some of them were later branded with PF insignia and A2's signature on the said gate pass. 8.107. The irregular gate pass P21, signed by A2, authorised the release of ABM 8166 and corroborates the evidence that the vehicle was disposed of. This is further supported by the letter dated 7th March 2019 from Mr. Martin Mugala, instructing RA TSA to change ownership from ZRA to Mr. Mulenga. However, Mr. Mulenga had never purchased, taken possession of, or shown interest in the vehicle. He only provided his driver's licence copy after being pressed by Mr. Mulozi to do so. This sh~ws that Mr. Mulenga's name was used merely as a front to facilitate the irregular transfer. 8.108. Subsequently, the vehicle's ownership was transferred to Mr. Matthews Manda, who was A1 ' s driver, and thereafter to Vegeland Farms Ltd, a company in which A1 was a shareholder. Though A1 in his defence claimed ignorance of the tran,saction, the sequence of transfers, first to his driver, then to his company, as clearly d\'monstrated ' by Mr. Luhana and Exhibit P23, shows that he was the ultimate beneficiary of the irregular disposal and that he was fully aware of it. It cannot be said that he passively ' allowed the vehicle to end up in his company. The circumstances point to deliberate involvement in ensuring that the vehicle was irregularly channelled for his benefit, ' ' notwithstanding that he was not entitled to participate in the tender process. This is too systematic to be dismissed as mere coincidenc""""·"""'stJYe sonally I ~ JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 1~27 ~M~ .~ .. \ n r nl'T executing the disposal, was directly implicated in abrogating the laid qown procedure, . ! and his benefit through his company confirms his willful participation in the irregular disposal. 8.108. As regards A2's defence, he denied excluding the vehicle from the advert and giving Mr Mulozi money. However, the evidence shows that adverts prepared by Mr Mulozi were always submitted to A2 for review before circulation, and it was 91t his stage that A2 gave instructions on which vehicles should be excluded, evidence properly corroborated, The proven omission of ABM 8166 from the advert, notwithstanding its approval by the Board, is consistent with Mr Mulozi's testimony and inconsistent with A2's denial. The corroborative documents and testimonies therefore displace his defence and directly link him to the irregularity. The evidence shows that A2 willfully failed to comply with procedure. 8.109. Accordingly, I find that both A1 and A2 willfully failed to comply with the applicable procedure in respect of Count 13. I therefore find them guilty as charged on this count and I convict them accordingly. 8.110. Count 14: Turning to the count, it is alleged that the accused did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABL 3753, the property of the Zambia Revenue Authority. ' 8.111. The vehicle was1 recomme·nded for disposal in 2017 as item number 22 on the schedule (ExhibitiP2) and was duly approved for disposal by the Board as reflected in Exhibit P3. However, the vehicle does not appear on the 2017 advertisement. II is therefore clear that, despite approval, the vehicle was not advertised to members of staff as required by the procedure. 8.112. According to Mr. Mulozi, in 2017, they submitted 29 vehicles and all were approved : for disposal, with an additional vehicle carried over f ,l<E1~ total to 30. JUDICIARY' 1,4 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX I l" The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~~ .WJJ!~ 128 0 6 OCT 1Mr;"J'~ Out of these, only 24 were advertised after A2 returned the advert with certain vehicles marked for exclusion, among them ASL 3753. Ms. Ng'andu corroborated this by confirming that although 29 vehicles were approved, 7 were not advertised, an0 that I these vehicles were later sold through 6ther means outside the recommended process. 8.113. Mr. Malembeka testified that he deposited K20,000.00 into the ZRA account al the ' instruction of A2 in relation to ASL 3753. His name appears on the gate pass (Exhibit r,o P11A) and the deposit slip and receipt bearing the same amount linked lo the vehicle are on record. Although his evidence requires caution, it is corroborated by the fact that ASL 3753, like other vehicles approved in 2017, was excluded fro~ advertisement I but later disposed of irregularly. The broade·r pattern of irregular dispos~ls in that year, as supported by documentary evidence and Ms. Ng'andu's testimony, strengthens the ' reliability of his account. of 8.114. This evidence establishes that ASL 3753, was dispose·d outside the prescribed .. I procedure, without advertisement, bidding, or allocation to the highest bidder. Mr. Mulozi's evidence that A2 was responsible for, excluding approved vehicles from I advertisement for 2017 is already corroborated and I will not belabour. ..I 1' r,0 8.115. As regards A1 , the evidence of his involvement on this matter is an out of court statement as already found. In the absence of other evidence connecting him to this vehicle, this evidence cannot be relied on to secure a conviction. This being the case, I find the offence not proved against him beyond reasonable doubt and I acquit him of i this count. 8.116. Accordingly, I find the offence proved against A2 and I convict him of Count 14. I i:.l'lJ\3LIC OF ZA1vte, ~ JUDICIARY '1 MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX ]0, ~ ~-~~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma · 2025 8.117. Count 15: It is alleged that the accused did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABL 3851, the property of the Zambia Revenue Authority. 8.118. Mr. Mulozi, testified that in 2017 a total of 29 vehicles were submitted and approved I for disposal by the Board, with an additional vehicle from 2016 making the total 30. I • However, only 24 were advertised. It was his evidence that A2 excluded this vehicle also from the advert. This evidence is corroborated by ,Ms. Ng'andu, who confirmed that although 29 vehicles were approved, seven were not advertised, and that those vehicles were later sold outside the reco:mmended prockdure. The omission of ABL 3851 from the advertisement is thus supported by both oral and documentary evidence, namely the schedule (P2) listed as item number 24, the Board resolution ! . (P3), and the 2017 advertisement. 8.119. Mr. Malembeka, when summoned by Internal Affairs in 2022, was shown gate passes for both ABL 3753 (Exhibit P11A) and ABL 3851 (Exhibit P11 B), together with a deposit slip for K20,000 linked to ABL 3753. He acknowledged that these documents bore his details but denied ever purchasing or taking possession of either Pajero. He explained that he had only purchased a Toyota Corolla ALG 9211 and that his ,,,Q involvement with the Pajero was limited to makihg a de~osit at the instruction of A2 in relation to ABL 3753. He disowned any connection with ABL 3851, although ZRA ' records suggested otherwise. His testimony therefore points to the fact that his name was used in the documentation for vehicles that were i\regularly disposed of without his active participation. I. I 8.119. The documentary evidence of the exclusion of ABL 3851 from the advertisement, . ' combined with the gate pass issued in M\ Malembeka's name, shows that the vehicle was disposed of outside procedure. It wa9 not atjvertised, not subjected to competitive ' !s1t-l&cPP.~ bidding, and was ultimately allocated contrary to the · · JUDICl:t>.RY MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX I I~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 130 ';ii~ ,0 6 OCT 2025 8.120. While Mr Malembeka's testimony must be treated with caution as he is a suspect witness, his account finds support in the broader pattern of irregular disposals in 2017, where approved vehicles, including ABL 3753, were excluded from advertisement and later released irregularly. This consistent modus operandi corroborates his account and aligns with Mr Mu/ozi's evidence that A2 personally instructed that ABL 3851 be excluded from the advert. 8.121. Turning to A1 , apart from the out of court statement, no independent evidence • I connects A1 to ABL 3753 specifically. The gate pass, deposit slip, and witness testimony all point to A2 as the person giving instructions and facilitating the irregular transaction. No documentary evidence or qorroborated testimony establishes that A1 played any part in the exclusion of ABL 3753 from the advert or its subsequent irregular disposal. 8.122. Accordingly, I find that the offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against A1, who is acquitted of this count. However, I find that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt against A2. I therefore convict A2 on Count 15. 8.123. Count 16: II is alleged that the accused did wilfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of a Mitsubish Pajero bearing registration 0 ' number ABM 987, the property of Zambia Revenue Authority. r I 8.124. In his testimony, Mr.' Mulozi stated that In 2017 a total of 29 vehicles were presented and approved by the Board for disposal, with one additional unit carried over from 2016, bringing the overall number to 30. Despite this, only 24 were placed in the advertisement after A2 returned the draftlist with specific vehicles marked for removal. ABM 987 was among those excluded. As already stated, this account is supported by Ms. Ng'andu, who confirmed that although 29 [vehicles were approved, seven were not advertised and were subsequently sold outsid ·" recess. The . . . I1',C JUDICIARYM &t-1 bi! MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma O6 OCT ,~ 131 exclusion of ABM 987 is therefore substantiated by both testimonial and documentary evidence, namely the schedule (P2) where it appears as item 16, the Board resolution (P3), and the 2017 advertisement. 8.125. It is cle_ar tha.t the vehicle was not advertised. However, there is no evidence showing that the said motor vehicle was disposed of notwithstanding that it was recommended and approveo for disposal. 8.126. For foregoing, I find the offence not proved beyond reasonable doubt and both accuse_d stand acquitted of count 16. 8.127. Count:17: It1is alleged that the accused willfully failed to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABR 9679, the property of the Zambia Revenue Authority. 8.128. The 2019 schedule of vehicles for disposal (Exhibit P2) lists this vehicle at item number 9, and the Board resolution of 4th September 2019 confirms its approval as item number 8. Despite this approval, the 2019 advertisement for disposal did not feature i ABR 9679. This omission demonstrates that although the vehicle was duly approved ii for disposal, was not advertised to members of staff as required by the laid-down procedure. I 8.124. According to Mr. Mulozi, the vehicle was excluded from the advert at the instruction of A2. His testimony is corroborated by several strands of independent evidence already established. First, the documentary record confirms the sequence. The vehicle ! appears in the schedule and Board resolution but disappears from the advert. The only stage where such an exclusion could occur is during A2's review of the draft advert, as Mr. Mulozi testified. Second, this same pattern of exclusion is seen with other vehicles which were approved but later omitted from the advert, establishing a consistt,nt course of conduct attributable to A2. Third, A2 mo to A1 ,'1.JBL 1 f...18/ ,'-~ JUDICIARY "1 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLr 1 2 Jit \ ~ 0 R OCT 2075 - (P7A/P7B) describing certain vehicles, including ABR 9679, as "additional vehicles" I for disposal. Yet the record shows that this vehicle was already Board-approved, which corroborates that A2 was del,iberately.re-framing approved vehicles as new "additions" in order to justify their disposal at that point inst~ad of waiting for next usual disposal. I 8.125. I should mention that A1's approval in relation to ABR 9679 was inconsequential, as the vehicle had already been approved by the Board. His purported "approval" did not I add or remove anything from the validity of the process and cannot be relied upon to argue that the disposal lacked Board approval. What is clear is that the irregularity lay I I not in the Board's approval but in A2's willful exclusion of the vehicle from the I advertisement, thereby circumventing procedure. 8.126. Although there is no evidence identifying who ultimately purchased the vehicle, the fact of disposal is not in dispute. Mr. Himuyamba testified that the vehicle was removed from the ZRA asset register following internal queries, showing that it was eventually disposed of. Since the vehicle was not advertised, it was not subjected to competItIve bidding and not awarded to .the highest bidder, contrary to the established disposal procedure. 8.127. The corroborated evidence establishes that A2 deliberately excluded the vehicle from the advertisement, a willful act designed to circumvent the prescribed process for the I r benefit of others. A2's conduct therefore amounts to willful failure to comply with the I applicable procedure within the meaning of Section 34(2)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act ' I No. 3 of 2012. 8.128. As regards A1 , the only evidence of his involvement is the out of court statement and I the approval which l have already found to be inconsequential. In the absence of other ' evidence linking him to the vehicle, a conviction cannot be sustained. ,>.'2.l'UBLIC OF <AA-( JUDICIARY '1 Mr;RATE COURT COMPLEX -c_s ocr fr~ The People v Kingsley Chanda and Cal!istus Kaoma 2025 3 8.129. Accordingly, I find the offence proved beyond reasonable doubt against A2, who is convicted on Count 17. The State has not discharged its burden against A1 , who is acquitted of this count. 8.130. Count 18: The allegation is that the accused willfully failed to comply with the • I applicable law and procedure in the disposal of a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration ! : number ALC 9120, the property of the Zambia Revenue Authority. 8.131. According to the evidence of PW2, Mr. Himuyamba, during preparations for audit he ' cjiscovered that 4 vehicles, including ALC 9120, had been disposed of without the approval of the Governing Board, contrary to procedure. He raised this matter with his r, ': . supervisor in an email (P6). His testimony is supported by the fact that ALC 9120 was ' I s~bsequently removed from the ZRA asset register, a fact not in dispute. I therefore ''.' find it not in dispute that the vehicle was disposed of. 8.132. The 2019 disposal schedule (P2) lists this vehicle as item number 14, but it does not appear among those approved by the Board. clearly, the Board did not approve its disposal. Despite this, a memo authored by A2 to A1 described the vehicle as an "additional" vehicle identified for disposal. A1 , in turn, endorsed the disposal. I do not see how this vehicle could be described as "additional" when it was already on the 0 2019 schedule but excluded by the Board at the approval stage. A2's conduct in this r I ' regard clearly points to an intention to circumvent the procedure. ! 8.133. In _his defence, A1 contended that he had the authority to \3pprove disposals on behalf of the Board, subject to subsequent ratification. This argument is rejected because the Asset Disposal Procedure does not provide for such a procedure, and there is no evidence on record that the Board ratified his purported ap_Qrovals. Vehicles are not . i perisJiable assets, and there was no urgency demonstrated that could justify tp\)SLIC OF Z41vte ~ JUDICIARY l,i MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX ' The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~, os ·ocr 134 2025 /~ proceeding outside the normal procedure. A1 's explanation is therefore both unconvincing and inconsistent with the evidence. ' 8.134. The arresting officer's evidence was consistent in that he noted that approximately 6 vehicles, including Toyota Hilux ALC 9120, were disposed of without approval from the goverping board. This evidence independently support_cthe findings of Mr. ' Himuyamqa that vehicles excluded from Board approval l,vere nonetheless irregularly disposed of. 8.135. Taking the evidence as a whole, it is clear that A2 initiated the irregularity by I misrepresenting ALC 9120 as an additional vehicle for disposal when it had in fact been excluded by the Board, and A1 sanctioned the irregular disposal. The ' i communication from the Secretary to the Treasury reqJired strict adherence to the disposal policy, and both accused were fu\ly aware of !hi$ requirement. Their actions were not inadvertent but deliberate, designed to bypass the laid .down process for the I benefit of others. 8.136. Further, the evidence of Ms. Bervous Chibale is telling. She testified that she : I discovered the vehicle was registered in her name without her knowledge or participation in its purchase. Exhibit P16, a ZRA general receipt dated 18th December rO - 2019 for ~50,000.00, confirms that the vehicle was recorded in her name. She explained that A1 had telephoned her and informed her !Hat her details would be ~sed for the vehicle. It is worth noting that she further explained1that she initially gave a false statement to Internal Affairs at A1 ' s guidance, bllt later told the truth before the Joint I • Investigation Team. The fact that she talked about it without being squeezed, I find her ~vidence reliable and I accept it 8.137. The evidence shows that A2 initiated the disposal process thrnugh his memo to A1 I and subsequently implemented the disposal afterA1's put val. A2 was the . ~el'UBL F <.4,1,f JUDICIARY -1 Mf GISTRATE COURT COMPLEX .,..,,. I Bs The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma .~i n " n"~ -· ..--... officer routinely receiving Board approvals from the Secretary, and he therefore knew that the vehicle had not been approved. Despite this knowledge, he went ahead with the disposal. His failure to follow procedure was therefore willful. 8.138. A1 , on the other hand, denied any involvement and sought to dismiss Ms. Chiba/e's ' . evidence as false and motivated by personal animosity. However, this explanation is unconvincing. Firstly, there is no evidence of any grudge or animosity between the two. Secondly, Ms. Chibale, being a staff member, qualified to bid for vehicles legitimately, and would therefore have no reason to falsely implicate A1 in such a "_Q serious matter. A1 ' s account that he merely acted on behalf of the Board and expected later ratification is not supported by the Asset Disposal procedure, which does not I provide individual approval followed by ratification. Nor was there any urgency that justified bypassing Board procedures. His version is thus inconsistent both with the governing policy and the surrounding circumstances. 8.139. I find that Ms. Chiba/e's evidence is credible and reliable, and that A1 ' s defence is not. The only reasonable inference is that A1 deliberately authorised the disposal of ALC 9120 outside the prescribed procedure, and personally facilitated its irregular allocation using Ms. Chibale's details. This is also supported by the established pattern of irregular disposal. His failure was willful. 8.140. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the State has proved Count 18 beyond reasonable doubt. Both A1 and A2 are found guilty of willfully failing to comply with the applicable procedure in the disposal of Mitsubishi Pajero ALC 9120. Consequently, I convict them of count 18. 8.141. Count 19: the count concerns the allegation that the accused willfully failed to comply with the applicable law and procedure in the disposal of a Mitsubishi Pajero registration number ALC 9123, the property of the Zambia Revenue A uc OF ZA.1.1 JUDICIARY 8 1 -'l1 m Mrd_G ISTRATE CO!IRT COMPLEX blM O6 OCT 2025 The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 8.142. As observed above, Mr. Himuyamba during audit preparations, observed that four yehicles, among them ALC 9123, had been disposed of without the requisite approval of the Governing Board, which was contrary to procedure. He reported this concern to his supervisor through an email (P6). His account is reinforced by the fact that ALC 9123 was later removed from the ZRA asset register, a matter that is not in contention. I therefore find it established and undisputed that the vehicle was disposed of. 8.143. The schedule of vehicles recommended for disposal in 2019 (P2) lists ALC 9123 as item number 12. However, the vehicle does not appear on the list of vehicles approved ! for disposal by the Board, which confirms that it was never authorised for disposal. a Despite this, memo authored by A2 to A1 described the vehicle as an "additional" vehicle identified for disposal. A1 , in turn, endorsed the disposal. Again, I do not see how this vehicle could be described as "additional" when it was already on the 2019 , . schedule but excluded by the Board at the approval stage. A2's conduct in this regard clearly points to an intention to circumvent the procedure. 8.144. In his defence, A1 contended that he had the authority to approve disposals on behalf qf the Board, subject to subsequent ratification. This argument has already been I rejected in relation to earlier counts. The Asset Disposal Procedure does not provide for such a procedure, and there is no evidence on record that the Board ratified his ' purported approvals. As earlier stated, vehicles are not perishable assets, and there was no urgency demonstrated that could justify proceeding outside the normal ~rocedure. A1 's explanation is therefore both unyonvincing and inconsistent with the evidence. 8.145. The arresting officer noted that approximately six vehicles, including Toyota Hilux ALC 9123, were disposed of without approval from the governing board. According to Mr. Luhana (PW15), the vehicle was still registered with RATSA under ZRA despite being I • Re disposed of. These strands of evidence independently f Mr. . ~ JUDICIARY MAGISTRATE COURT COMP!JX the People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ~* \ o oc1 202sk~ Himuyamba that vehicles excluded from Board approval were nonetheless irregularly disposed of. 8.146. Taking the evidence as a whole, it is clear that A2 initiated the irregularity by misrepresenting ALC 9123 as an additional vehicle for disposal when it had in fact been excluded by the Board, and A1 sanctioned its disposal without lawful authority. The communication from thEJ Secretary to the Treasury required strict adherence to the disposal policy, and both accused were fully aware of this requirement. Their actions were not inadvertent but deliberate, designed to bypass the laid down process for the benefit of others. 1. ', 8.147. Accordingly, I find that the State has proved beyond reasonable doubt that both A1 and A2 willfully failed to comply with the applicable procedure in respect of Count 19. I find them Guilty and I convict them of count 19. I I 8.148. Count 20: It is alleged that the accused did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure relating to the disposal of property in the manner they disposed of a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number ABV 2201, the property of the Zambia Revenue Authority. Q I 8.149. The documentary evidence shows that ABV 2201 is in fact a Toyota Prado and not a (-\ Mitsubishi Paje~o. The 2019 schedule of vehicles recommended for disposal lists this vehicle, but it dbes not appear among those approved for disposal by the Board in Exhibit P3. Instead, it also features on the memo (P7 A) th~ough which A2 sought approval from A1 to dispose of additional vehicles, and A1 subsequently gave approval. 8.150: However, unlike the other two vehicles identified as additional vehicles, there is no ' evidence that this vehicle was disposed of. The State did not produce proof that it was 6'a11JB~~~"ci€ds disposed of. In the absence of such evidence, it canno failed I MAGISTRATE COURT COMPLEX ,p. 1 \\'t))JB o OCT 2025 The People v Kingsley Charda and Cal\istus Kaoma ·~ 6 to comply with the laid down procedure "in the manner they disposed of' the vehicle, I because the essential act of disposal itself has not been proved. Without disposal, the allegation of willful failure to follow procedure cannot be sustained. 8.151. Accordingly, I find that the prosecution has not prov_ed Count 20 beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore find both accused not guilty and acquit them of this count. 8.152. Count 21: It is alleged that the accused did willfully fail to comply with the applicable law and procedure in the disposal of a Mitsubishi Pajero bearing registration number I ABL 2465, the property of the Zambia Revenue Authority. 8.153. According to the 2017 schedule of vehicles identifi~d for disposal, this vehicle was recommended for disposal as item number 28 and was duly approved by the I Governing Board, appearing as item number 29. However, the vehicle was not included in the 2017 advertisement for disposal. 8.154. Mr. Mulozi testified that in 2017, 29 vehicles were submitted for disposal and all were approved. Yet, only 24 were advertised, plus one vehicle carried over from 2016, making a total of 25. He explained that A2 returned the draft advert to him with certain vehicles marked for exclusion, including ABL 2465. Ms. Ngandu corroborated this, confirming that although 29 vehicles were approved, 7 were not advertised, and she recalled that these excluded vehicles were later ~old outside the recommended procedure. 8.156. Further corroboration is provided by the testimony of Ms. Tamara Mwale (PW?), who stated that the vehicle was purchased in her name. Receipt P14, issued in her name, confirms the transaction. She testified that A2 personally approached her and requested to use her details for the acquisition, assuring her that only her name would be used. Alt_i,ough A2 denied ever contacting Ms. Mw:ale and suggested that her name had been used b unknown ersons, the evidence c earl The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma MAGISTRATECOURTCOMPl.,IE X.,1.3,,9,, ,, I ,._g;;';.J, n ,-. flr'IT t\l'V'\l'" (~' -;~\ were in fact used to effect the purchase, as evidenced by the receipt. This aspect of her testimony remains unchallenged. _The only reasonable inference is trat A2 pr~rn.d..the.use_ofJJer.details for the transaction. 8.157. This conduct is consistent with the established pattern in other counts, where A2 I engaged members of staff such as Mr. Malembeka and Ms. Chibale to either make : I deposits or use their details, resulting in vehicles being purchased in their names for ' . the benefit of others. The similarity of circumstances strengthens-the reliability of Ms. Mwale's account and further undern\ines A2's denial. I therefore find no reason to (-9 doubt her evidence. 8.158. This is also in line with Mr. Mulozi's testimony and supports the conclusion that A2 I deliberately circumvented the procedure. In additipn, the exclusion of vehicles in 2017 has been independently corroborated by other witnesses such as Ms. Banda and Mr. ' I ' ' Chooba, whose testimonies show th'at A2 was directly involved in such exclusions. Their accounts are consistent with the established pa/tern and reinforce the evidence of Mr. Mulozi and Ms. Mwale, leaving no doubt that A2 intentionally ensured the removal of certain vehicles, including ABL 2465, from1 the approved list so they could be disposed of irregularly. r() 8.159. It is therefore evident that the disposal of this vehicle was not advertised, not subjected to co'mpetitive bidding, and not offered to the highest bidder, contrary to the Asset •-~----·~ I Disposal Procedure. ~· 8.160. As regards A1 , the only evidence linking him to this transaction is Mr. Mulozi's . : I assertion that A2 told him A1 was aware of the arrangement which is an out of court statement. In the absence of other evidence to prove A1 's involvement, It would be unsafe to convict A1 on that basis, and I find that th6 State oved beyond . ,:,l.l13UC OF ZA £3/A I . .,,_<c: JUDICIARY )' MAGIS'TRATE CQ\1°'' . •~.~:, '.~. The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma ' reasonable doubt that A1 willfully failed to comply with procedure. A1 is accordingly acquitted of this count. 8.161. For A2, however, the evidence is direct, corroborated, and overwh'elming. The I ' testimonies of Mr. Mulozi and Ms. Mwale, supported by receipt P14, corroborated by I Ms. Ng'andu's account, and further reinforced 1by the independent evidence of Ms. ,Banda and Mr. Chooba, all demonstrate deliberate conduct. A2, fully awa e of the laid1 • • I down procedure, excluded !he vehicle from the advertisement and ensurep its disposal I . : . . through irregular means .. His conduct was not accidental ~ut am~unted to a willful r 1 failure to comply with the applicable prpcedure under Section 34(2)(b) of the AntiI ' ' . Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012. · 8.162. I therefore find the offence not proved against Kingsley Chanda, who is acquitted, but . . ' proved beyond reasonable doubt against Callistus Kaoma, who is convicted on Count I . 21. I I 8.163. Count 22: It is alleged that the accused 1did willfully fail to c~mply jVilh the applicable law and procedure in the disposal of a ~itsubishi Pajero registration number ABR · p684, the property of the Zambia Revenu~ Authority. I I () 8.164. The schedule for vehicles identified for immediate disposal in 2019I,ists this vehicle as r··, -- I I item number 11 and the Board resolution shows ii was approved ynder item number 7- .Hbwever, the vehicle does not appear on the 2019 advertisement. Accprding to Mr. Himuyamba (PW2), during audit preparations he discovered that ABR 9684, among I · • , I other vehicles, had been disposed of witbout Board approval, and he raised the issue I I with his supervisor in the email (P6). This is corroborated by the fact th t the vehicle I I I . . was 1subsequenfly removed from the ZRA asset register, which confirms i,t was indeed dh posed of and I find accordingly. I , ' ' I The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 8.165. Mr. Mulozi testified that although 14 vehicles were proposed for disposal in 2019, only 10 were advertised following A2's instructions, with ABR 9684 among those excluded. While his testimony, taken alone, might require caution, it is independently supported by the 2019 documentation. The schedule {P2) and Board resoiution (P3) confirm that the vehicle was approved, yet the advertisement shows it was not offered to staff for ' competitive bidding. Ms. Ng'andu's testimony further corrobor~tes this by confirming ; I that although vehicles were approved, some were ultimately sold: outside the recommended procedure. rO 8.166. Most importantly, this count cannot be viewed in isolation. Th~ pattern for the 2019 disposals has already been established in relation. In each of those cases, vehicles approved for disposal were either excluded from advertisement or wrongly described as "additional" in A2's memos to A1 , and then disposed of irregularly. Witnesses such . ! as Ms. Ng'andu, Mr. Himuyamba, and Mr. Luhana, together with the documentary trail (P6, P7 A, P2, P3, the advertisements, and RA TSA recorqs), provide independent corroboration that A2 consistently excluded vehicles from the adverts' and facilitated ' their disposal outside the lawful process. 8.167. The exclusion of ABR 9684 from the 2019 advert therefore.falls squarely within this established pattern of deliberate conduct by A2. The corroborated evidence across the other 2019 counts strengthens the reliability of Mulozi's testimony in \his case and shows that the ornission was not accidental, but part of a wider scheme orchestrated . . . I by A2 to bypass the prescribed procedure. 8.168. As for A1 , there is no independent evidence linking him directly'· to the disposal. of this specific vehicle apart from the out of court statement attributed to A2, ~hich cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction. 9F t-?UBLIC :0..Ms ,>; JUDICIARY l,q MAGISTRATE COURT COMPlEX ii& @\ 0 6 OCT 2025 . The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 142 CHIEF RES/flFNT IJ.H:rOTOAT~ 8.169. I therefore find that the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against A2, who willfully failed to comply with the laid down procedure by excluding the vehicle from advertisement and ensuring it was disposed of Irregularly. '1 8.170. I find Count 2,2 not proved beyond reasonable doubt in respect of Kingsley Chanda. I find him Not guilty and I acquit him of count 22. However, I find the offence proved I . ' beyond reasonable doub_t in respect of A2. I find him guilty and I convict him of this : : count. Q 9.0. CONCLUSIO,N 9.1. I find that the prosecution has not waved, beyond reasonable doubt, the offence of willful failure to comply with applicable law and procedure contrary to section 34(2)(b) of the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012 against KINGSLEY CHANDA in respect of Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15', 16, 17, 20, 21, and 22. He is accordingly found not guilty on those counts and is hereby acquitted. However, I find that the prosecution has proved Counts 13, 18, and 19 beyond reasonable doubt against him. He is therefore guilty as charged and is hereby convicted on the said three counts. i ' ' 0 i I . 9.2. With respect to CALLISTUS KAOMA, I find that the prosecution has not proved the (' said offence beyond reas_onable doubt in relation to Counts 3, 4, 5, 7,16 and 20. He is therefore not guilty on those counts and is hereby acquitted. The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 143 However, the prosecution has proved Counts 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 22 beyond reasonable doubt against him. I accordingly find him guilty as charged and is hereby convicted on the said sixteen counts. IRA 14 days. Delivered in Open Court at Lusaka this .................. day of ................ 2025 ................ ,. ..... I REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA n '. i""::'S~UBOR7DIN'A;TE' C;O;U;RT; ·"'; ~ SYLVIA MUNYINYQ~OH (M ~~INC/PAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATE . ACTING CHIEF RESIDENT MAG1$ffWPE.o _. - 80 ..:.:x. 3 :. 0 ::. 2 : 0 : 2 :·:_::L~us~AK~A~j The People v Kingsley Chanda and Callistus Kaoma 144

Judgment

The People v Kingsley Chanda and Anor (SSPA/007/22) (6 October 2025) – ZambiaLII

Judgment

Similar Cases

Discussion

The People v Kingsley Chanda and Anor (SSPA/007/22) (6 October 2025) – ZambiaLII

Judgment

Similar Cases

Discussion