By AARON CHIYANZO
CHARLES Loyana, the alleged owner of the infamous 48 (51) houses in Chalala and his wife Susan Sinkala have finally been arrested and charged by the Anti-Corruption Commission over corrupt practices involving concealment and possession of property suspected to be proceeds of crime valued at over K 37 million.
This was two years after the Daily Nation exposed them as owners of the properties.
In the first count, Mr. Loyana aged 51 and Ms Loyana aged 46 of House Number 2728 off Shantumbu Road, Chalala in Lusaka have both been charged with one count of concealment of property suspected to be proceeds of crime.
In the second, the duo is charged with one count of possession of property suspected to be proceeds of crime, all contrary to section 71 Sub Section 1 of the Forfeiture of Proceeds of Crime Act No. 19 of 2010.
ACC spokesperson, Queen Chibwe said on dates unknown but between January 1st, 2012 and June 30th 2019, Mr. Loyana, a Senior Accountant at the Ministry of Finance and Ms. Loyana, an Assistant Accountant at the Ministry of Works and Supply jointly and whilst acting together with others unknown, did con-ceal and possess 51 properties valued at K 37,916,000.00.
“The duo has been released on bond and will appear in court on December, 14th 2021,” she said.
According to Daily Nation investigations of 2019, Mr Loyana, who was responsible for determining and facilitating the pay-ment of billions of Kwacha to contractors in his position as sen-ior accountant – outstanding bills at the Ministry of Finance purchased the infamous houses.
Between 2012 and 2015 he paid K1, 060, 000, cash in crisp banknotes from the Bank of Zambia to buy two sets of plots on which he built the 51 houses.
The receipts were presented to the ACC. However, when inter-rogated Mr Loyana denied ownership of the properties.
The two sets of plots are in a housing development estate that has 1,100 plots and is run by Lombe Bwalya and Associates Housing Project and Khankara and Company.
Altogether Mr Loyana bought 23 plots, the total cost was K1, 700,000 of which he paid K1, 060, 000 leaving an out- standing balance of $106, 000 or K540, 000 at the ruling rate in 2012.
Copies of the receipts for the money paid were furnished to the ACC investigation team.
Mr Loyana apparently became a person of interest to the ACC following complaints by whistle blowers who complained that he was allegedly demanding substantial favours for processing outstanding payments.
He apparently served in the office from around 2011 to 2018. He went on leave and never returned to work since the story of the 48 houses broke.
Mr Loyana’s wife, is a person of interest under the ACC investi-gation only because the husband put her name on some form when buying the plots.
According to records held at the project, Mr Loyana bought the first six plots on which he developed 36 housing units in 2012.
These were fully paid for, but title has not been passed because Mr Loyana has failed to sign the final documents of assignments.
The consent and property transfer on these plots were paid for pending signing of assignment for the title to be issued. However, late 2018, he requested for the property to be transferred in the name of Chali Chitala. He supplied filled in forms and National Registration Card for Chitala.
However, Chitala never reported to the project to sign the requisite document and when traced and confronted by ACC investigators on the Copperbelt, he willingly signed a forfeiture document after confessing that the properties did not belong to him.
Earlier Mr Loyana had also tried to register some of the properties in the names of his children who were minors and could not therefore own property.
On the second lot of plots Mr Loyana developed a further 15 housing units while others have in-complete structures and 13 others remain bare.
Following forfeiture, the project management demanded the settlement of the remaining balance by the ACC before surrender could be completed.
The Daily Nation discovered during its investigations in 2019 that the ACC did not serve the forfei-ture notices on all the interested parties such as the Lombe Bwalya and Associates as well as Khan-kara and Company who are administering the project.
For all practical purposes the ACC appeared to have bungled and mismanaged the entire investiga-tion by failing to take into confidence some of the whistle blower contractors who could have served as witnesses.
Equally, it appears that the procedure of forfeiture was hurriedly undertaken as most interested parties were not served with the notices as stipulated in forfeiture procedures.
