In a perfected ruling delivered on 29th November 2024 by the High Court, Norman Chisale and his associates face a critical legal setback in their attempts to evade justice regarding the forfeiture of properties alleged to have been acquired through proceeds of crime during their tenure in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government. The Court dismissed multiple preliminary objections raised by Chisale, paving the way for the State to proceed with its application for forfeiture.
The legal saga began on February 25, 2021, when the then Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Dr. Steven Kayuni, successfully sought a Preservation Order, freezing certain bank accounts and seizing key assets owned by Chisale. This was based on suspicions that the properties in question were acquired illegally. In July 2022, the DPP filed for an order to permanently forfeit these assets to the State, leading to a protracted legal battle.
Chisale, rather than complying with a court directive to file a defense within 21 days, sought to block the proceedings through appeals to the Supreme Court—both to stay the forfeiture process and to refer the matter to the Chief Justice for constitutional consideration. However, on December 21, 2022, the Supreme Court denied these requests, affirming that the forfeiture proceedings could continue.
On October 1, 2024, the DPP formally notified the High Court of its readiness to move forward with the forfeiture proceedings, scheduling the hearing for November 5, 2024. In a last-ditch effort to stall the case, Chisale’s team filed several preliminary objections regarding the procedural validity of the State’s application.
The Court thoroughly examined these objections. It found no merit in Chisale’s claims regarding a referral to the Chief Justice for certification, stating that the Supreme Court’s judgment did not support his assertions. The Court noted, “There is no notice of such referral. There is, therefore, nothing preventing this Court from proceeding to hear the application.”
Additionally, the Court ruled that Chisale’s arguments against the irregularities of the State’s October 1 application were merely procedural and not substantive enough to warrant dismissal of the case. It clarified that the application was not an initiation of new proceedings but rather a notice of an upcoming hearing.
Chisale’s contention regarding the conflict of interest involving State Counsel Pilirani Masanjala was also rejected. The Court criticized the lack of legal basis for this claim, highlighting inconsistencies in the defense’s logic.
The ruling has serious implications for Chisale and his associates, as the forfeiture proceedings will now advance without delay. Legal experts suggest that the best course of action for Chisale would be to prepare a robust defense against the claims of illicit acquisition of assets, as the State appears poised for a significant victory.
