Couple sentenced to 3 years for being in possession of 51 houses in Chalala appeals court’s decision

A couple convicted and sentenced to three years for being in possession of the infamous 51 houses in Chalala area worth over K37 million have appealed against the Lusaka Magistrate Court’s decision.

Charles Loyana, a senior accountant in the Ministry of Finance, and his wife, Susan Sinkala, an assistant accountant at the Ministry of Works and Supply were on June 30, 2023, found guilty of corrupt practices, involving concealment and possession of property suspected to be proceeds of crime valued at over K37 million.

In the first count, it was alleged that between January 1, 2012 and June 30 2019, Loyana and Sinkala, while working with others unknown people, concealed 51 properties valued K37,916,000, properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime.

In the second count, It was alleged that between January 1, 2012 and June 30 2019, the couple, while acting with other unknown people, did possess 51 properties valued K 37,916,000., properties reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime.

Magistrate Faides Hamaundu in her judgement said there was no proof that the convicts entered into a business agreement with two Tanzanian nationals and were given power of attorney to purchase property on their behalf.

She added that the duo’s known sources of income could not equate to the amount used to purchase the said property.

But the couple had filed a notice of appeal in the Lusaka High Court challenging their conviction and sentencing.

Loyana and Sinkala have raised 15 grounds of appeal, among them, the trial Magistrate erred in law and facts when she convicted them of the subject offence, against a reasonable explanation, supported by the prosecution evidence of how the properties came into our possession.

They contended that Magistrate Hamaundu erred when she convicted the couple of the subject offence on the insistence that the financing of the properties in question did not correspond with their known income, when in fact, there was clear evidence of how the financing for the acquisition and construction of the properties that it was not financed using the their finances.

“The learned trial Magistrate erred when she chose to fill in gaps left by the prosecution against the principle of criminal law, which requires her to make findings of fact only on evidence before her. The trial magistrate erred by making assertions and findings not supported by law and evidence,” they contested.

WARNING! All rights reserved. This material, and other digital content on this website, may not be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part without prior express permission from ZAMBIA MONITOR.