Brave Heart News | 13 February 2026
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, led by Gilbert Phiri, together with the Anti-Corruption Commission, has moved to appeal the acquittal of Livingstone’s civic leader, Constance Muleabai, arguing that the trial court misapplied the law when it cleared her of corruption charges.
At the centre of the dispute is an allegation that the Mayor solicited 2,299 Kwacha actually K120,000 and corruptly obtained K180,000 from businessman Mark Gabites as an inducement to secure a 100 percent remission of property rates owed by Zam Nuka Farm Limited to the Livingstone City Council.
The property rates had accumulated to more than 2,299 Kwacha actually over K388,000.
During trial, Trevor Kasanda acknowledged that solicitation had indeed occurred.
However, he ruled that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ms. Muleabai personally solicited the K120,000 from Mr. Gabites as stated in the charge.
The court also found that the Mayor did receive K180,000 corruptly but the evidence did not support the allegation that the money came from Mr. Gabites. Instead, it was shown that the funds originated from Oliver Perry, moved through another individual, Monde Sumbwa, and only then reached the accused.
Despite these findings, the court acquitted Ms. Muleabai, a decision that the DPP and ACC now say is flawed. Their appeal lists six grounds, including the argument that the court failed to apply Section 77(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act, provisions that deal with how courts should treat prima facie evidence in corruption cases.
They further argue that once the court acknowledged that solicitation and corrupt receipt occurred, it should not have acquitted the accused simply because the funds did not come directly from Mr. Gabites, as named in the indictment.
The matter now moves to a higher court, where the interpretation of the law and the handling of evidence in corruption cases will be placed under fresh scrutiny.
JUST TO UNLOCK YOUR MIND
This case touches on a bigger conversation in Zambia’s justice system: What happens when corruption money travels through several hands?
Most corruption transactions rarely move directly from point A to point B. They pass through friends, business associates, “good Samaritans,” or middlemen-just like in this case, where the court traced the funds back to Oliver Perry and not the person mentioned in the charge sheet.
Another key point is how courts handle prima facie evidence, which simply means “evidence good enough to prove something unless it is challenged.”
The ACC and DPP believe the magistrate should have moved forward with conviction at that stage.
When anti-corruption cases swing between conviction, technicalities, fresh appeals, and new evidence, citizens begin asking: Are we dealing with corruption, or with corruption of the process?
[Brave HeartNews | UnlockingMinds].
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Leave a Comment