03/10/2025
HIGH COURT REOPENS HONEY BEE CASE INVOLVING DR. CHITALU CHILUFYA
In a major legal development, the Economic and Financial Crimes Division of the High Court, on September 30, 2025, granted the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) leave to appeal out of time in the controversial case involving Honey Bee Pharmacy Limited, and seven others.
This opens the door for a long-delayed challenge to the 2021 acquittal of former Minister of Health Dr. Chitalu Chilufya and Honey Bee Pharmacy Limited that has fueled years of legal wrangling and public outcry over procurement integrity and accountability in Zambia’s health sector. Also named as Respondents in this case are Wilson Lungu, Bonaventure Chilinde, Zakir Husen Motala, Chomba Kaoma, Imran Lunat, and Abdurraut Abdurrahim Motola.
No Plea. No Trial. But Acquitted.
The case dates back to January 19, 2021, when a private prosecution was initiated in the Subordinate Court by way of a complaint. Unlike ordinary criminal prosecutions, which are instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the law permits private individuals to initiate prosecutions under Section 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), Chapter 88 of the Laws of Zambia, provided they obtain the DPP’s prior consent.
In this instance, however, the complaint was fatally defective in that it lacked the mandatory consent of the DPP and was unsigned, in clear violation of the law. It should never have been entertained by the Court. Notably, just hours after the complaint was filed, a notice of withdrawal was also lodged, and the complaint was accordingly withdrawn.
Subsequently, on January 26, 2021, one week later, the Subordinate Court acquitted all the Accused Persons in a case that was filed and withdrawn on the same day. This was done pursuant to Section 201 of the CPC, notwithstanding the fact that none of the accused had ever set foot in the courtroom or entered a plea. Section 201 of the CPC permits an acquittal where a complainant withdraws their case and the court is satisfied that sufficient grounds warranting the withdrawal of the case exist. In this instance, no such grounds were ever furnished, raising serious questions about the legitimacy of the acquittal from the outset.
A Shield Against Prosecution
In 2022, fresh charges were filed by the Anti-Corruption Commission against all the then Accused persons over the same controversial US$17 million health kit contract and they appeared before court. When the time came for them to take plea, they all claimed they could not be “tried again” pleading the doctrine of autrefois acquit - a legal plea which bars (prevents) a person from being prosecuted twice for the same offence following an acquittal.
That plea was, however, dismissed after a factual inquiry by the Subordinate Court where the Accused Persons appeared and that Court, accordingly, directed them all to take plea.
From that point onwards, the case unfolded into a protracted legal battle marked by applications premised on constitutional issues and successive appeals.
Three Appeals. One Application on Constitutional Issues. One Legal Turning Point.
Several separate applications were lodged: Zakir Husen Motala, Imran Lunat, and Abdurrahim Motala appeared before the General Division of the High Court challenging the Subordinate Court’s decision ordering them to take plea and Wilson Lungu appeared before the Economic and Financial Crimes Division of the High Court (EFCC), seeking a decision of the High Court on the Constitutional issues that had been raised in the Subordinate Court.
In the Zakir case the High Court ruled that the 2021 acquittals were irregular and made without jurisdiction and the case was sent back to the Subordinate Court for trial.
In the Wilson Lungu case before the EFCC, it was held that the proceedings under Cause No. 2SPD/027/2021 were irregular and that the consequent orders of acquittal by the Subordinate Court were null and void.
Two appeals from those cases were lodged in the Court of Appeal, but it was the Court of Appeal’s ruling dated November 19, 2024, that brought finality. The court held that only the DPP, by invoking Section 321A, could appeal an acquittal and that the High Court had no jurisdiction to set it aside otherwise.
This decision made it clear that the acquittals stood valid unless overturned by a formal appeal by the DPP.
DPP Takes Action
Guided by this ruling, the DPP, through Principal State Advocate, Mrs. Angelica Kennedy-Mwanza, applied for leave to appeal out of time. The State argued the four-year delay was due to ongoing appeals by the Respondents, the last of which concluded in November 2024 but its judgment was only served on the State in January 2025. The State filed its application for leave to appeal out of time immediately thereafter on the 6thFebruary, 2025. Mrs. Kennedy-Mwanza further argued that the case involved issues of public importance and justice. Citing Article 118(2)(b) of the Constitution, she urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of substantive justice over procedural rigidity.
Respondents Oppose
The Respondents’ legal teams, led by Mr. Mwamba of Messrs. Gill & Seph Advocates and co-defended by Boniface Chiwala of Messrs Chiwala Boniface Legal Practitioners strongly opposed the application, arguing that the time for appeal had long lapsed and could not be extended. They insisted the DPP had failed to justify the delay and that granting the application would undermine the finality of an acquittal.
Court Grants Leave
The High Court disagreed with the Respondents, ruling that the case raised serious legal questions and warranted appellate scrutiny. It granted the DPP leave to appeal out of time, effectively reopening a case once thought closed.
The DPP is now expected to file a formal appeal. If successful, the 2021 acquittals may be overturned potentially allowing the long-stalled prosecution to proceed.
Wider Implications
This ruling has far-reaching consequences, particularly on how Section 201 is applied, and how acquittals arising from procedural irregularities can be challenged - even years later.
It also raises critical questions about the balance between procedural safeguards and the public’s interest in accountability, especially in high-profile corruption cases.
The Honey Bee saga, which has gripped public attention for over four years, is far from over.
