The Zambian Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Gilbert Phiri, has contended that ex-President Edgar Lungu’s daughter, Tasila, has no known source of income that would warrant her display of wealth which included the purchase of a farm in Sinda district.

Phiri had last year filed an application before the Economic and Financial Crimes Court, High Court division, to forfeit to the State the farm with an estimated value of K13 million.

But in her objection to the order, Tasila had challenged the State to prove her guilty of criminally acquiring the farm which she said was purchased with financial assistance from her father.

She described the investigations against her by the agencies including the Drug Enforcement Commission (DEC), as “deliberate, intentional and malicious” following the change of government after the 2021 presidential elections.

The DPP, while testifying in the alleged corruption case against Tasila, argued that her mere mention of her father as having financially assisted her to purchase the farm is not proof enough to conclude that the property was acquired and developed using legitimate funds.

The State’s evidence which was contained in an affidavit in reply to Tasila’s claims in opposition, also demanded for her to provide documentation depicting the movement of funds from the former President to herself.

Meanwhile, the DEC senior investigations officer, Emmanuel Khondwe, who also testified in the celebrated case, noted that there was cogent evidence that suggested that the property was reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime, thus, should be forfeited to the State.

Khondwe stated that according to investigations carried out by the agency. Tasila had no known income prior to the period June 11, 2015, to August 31, 2021.

In its affidavit, the DEC contended “that it is crucial for the interested party to provide clear documentation demonstrating the interested party’s father’s involvement and assistance in acquiring and developing the property, along with evidence of his financial contribution.

“That additionally, thorough disclosure of the interested party’s father’s financial sources is necessary to ascertain the legality of the funds so gifted to the interested party which were utilized to acquire and develop the property in question.

“That this information is crucial for the court to make well informed decisions regarding the legality of the funds and the status of the property under scrutiny.”

Khondwe, however, responded that the forfeiture proceedings against the property were not malicious but allegations true, founded and supported by compelling evidence.

“The interested party must demonstrate, in explicit detail, the origin and timelines showing when she came into possession of the funds utilized for the acquisition and development of the property,” he stated.

The State has also denied infringement of Tasila’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty with Khondwe arguing that the forfeiture proceedings were not directed at her but rather at the property itself.