By GRACE CHAILE LESOETSA
FORMER President Edgar Lungu’s son-in-law, Patrick Mwansa, has sued the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) demanding that the investigative wing reverses the restriction notice on his two properties.
According to documents filed in the Lusaka High Court by his lawyers Makebi Zulu Advocates, Mr Mwansa, who is married to Chawama Member of Parliament Tasila Lungu, said that ACC claimed in its notice that he was being investigated for corrupt offences.
He stated that he was on January 27, 2022, served with a restriction notice issued under Section 60 (10) of the Anti-Corruption Act signed by former acting Director General Silumesi Muchula.
He said the notice stated that there were investigations being conducted into corrupt offences suspected to have been committed under Part III of the Anti-Corruption Act by him.
“That the said notice directed that I should not dispose of or otherwise deal with Property number Kafue/LN-59832/7 held on certificate of title number CT-50713 and property number F/4142/G14/P held on certificate of title number CT-51100,” he said.
Mr Mwansa said according to the notice, he should not dispose of or otherwise deal with the two properties.
He denied having acquired the said properties from any corrupt practices.
He contended that the properties in question are subject of a third-party mortgage with Suleman Ismail Pandor.
“That I have limited control of the said property given the fact that upon obtaining a facility from the lender, the interest I held is subject to their restrictions of the lender,” he said.
Mr Mwansa argued that the issuance of the restriction notice was done erroneously as Mr Muchula had no authority.
“That the only time the President can appoint an acting DG for the commission is when there an absentia or the office is disposed (the person occupying the office is unable for any reason to perform the functions of that office),” he said.
He said the resignation of the DG and the deputy of the Commission created a vacancy but did not warrant the appointing of the acting DG who went ahead and restricted his property, thus commenced proceedings to set it aside.
Mr Mwansa believed that the nullity of the appointment of Mr Muchula, the restriction notice is therefore null and void.
