LUSAKA | October 1, 2025 – The Economic and Financial Crimes Division of the High Court has dismissed an application by former High Court Judge Wilfred Kopa Muma to refer constitutional questions to the Constitutional Court, clearing the way for his corruption trial to proceed.

Mr. Muma is facing two charges:

• Wilful failure to comply with the law relating to the allocation and disposal of public property, contrary to section 34 (2) (b) of the Anti-Corruption Act number 3 of 2012 (Count 1), and
• Abuse of authority of office under the Anti-Corruption Act, contrary to section 21 (1) (a) as read with section 41 of the aforementioned Act. (Count 2).

At the centre of the case is Plot No. Lusaka/LN-8426/1, a property whose certificate of title was initially held by the Zambia Army. The State alleges that between April and December 2018, while serving as Commissioner of Lands, Mr. Muma cancelled the Army’s title and reallocated the land to the Patriotic Front (PF) party, allegedly acting on verbal instructions from then-President Edgar Lungu.

A three-judge panel, comprising Judge Pixie Yangailo, Judge Anne Malata-Ononuju, and Judge Ian Mabbolobbolo, delivered the ruling on September 30, 2025, rejecting the Defence’s request to stay (halt) proceedings pending constitutional interpretation.

During his defence, Mr. Muma’s legal team, led by Mr. H.A. Chizu and Mr. James Matarilo, invoked Article 128(2) of the Constitution, asking the Court to refer five constitutional questions regarding presidential instructions and delegated authority to the Constitutional Court. These included:

• Whether the duty to have presidential instructions in writing lies with the public officer receiving them;
• Whether all instructions issued by the President under Article 91(2) must be in writing to be valid;
• Whether verbal instructions from the President are legally void;
• Whether Article 93 was intended to prohibit public officers from acting on verbal instructions; and
• Whether delegated presidential authority must be exercised only under daily written instructions.

They argued these issues were central to the trial and had emerged during cross-examination of defence witnesses.

Represented by Mrs. Angelica. Kennedy-Mwanza (Principal State Advocate) and Mr. M. Sitali (State Advocate), the National Prosecution Authority opposed the motion. They argued as follows:

Article 93 had already arisen during the prosecution’s case, and the Defence had missed earlier opportunities to raise constitutional issues. They further argued that the delay was tactical and would stall proceedings. Lastly, they argued that no prejudice to the Defence had been demonstrated.

The Court acknowledged that Article 128(2) mandates referral of constitutional questions whenever they arise in the course of proceedings before any court. However, it emphasised that not all mentions of the Constitution qualify.

The judges held:

• On the first question (duty to receive instructions in writing), the Court found it was not a constitutional question, as it did not require interpretation of a specific constitutional text.
• On questions two, three, and four (validity of verbal presidential instructions), the Court held that the matter had already been conclusively interpreted in the Isaac Mwanza v. The Attorney General case,where the Constitutional Court ruled that presidential decisions must be in writing to have legal force under Article 93(1).
• On the fifth question (need for daily written instructions under delegated authority), the Court held that it was based on a false assumption and did not raise a novel constitutional issue.

“None of the questions posed by the Defence disclose a constitutional issue requiring referral,” the Court ruled.

“The Application… is hereby dismissed.”

Following the dismissal to the application, the Defence team formally closed their case. The Court then issued orders for filing final submissions, after which it announced that judgment has been scheduled for March 26, 2026, once both parties have adhered with the Court’s orders for filling final submissions.

Case Name and Cause Number – The People v. Wilfred Kopa Muma HPEF/001/2023

The National Prosecution Authority remains committed to ensuring that justice is served in accordance with the law and that accountability in public office is upheld without fear or favour.