Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) has been sued

Anti Corruption Commision - ACC
Anti Corruption Commision - ACC

A FORMER Bank of Zambia (BoZ) employee has dragged the Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) to court over its decision to place a restriction notice on his 20 motor vehicles and other properties.

Martin Simumba has since asked the Lusaka High Court to order that the restriction notice placed on his properties in 2008 is no longer applicable and was null and void.

Mr Simumba wants the court to order ACC not to renew its restriction order and to also order that the restriction notice dated December 19, 2008 should not be renewed.

He also wants the court to reverse the restriction notice so that he could have access to his properties and that he be given damages for misfeasance in public office and an order for costs for the court proceedings.

Mr Simumba of plot number 74A Lukanga road, Roma Township stated in his writ of summons filed in the principal registry that on November 19, 2008, the ACC issued a restriction notice on his motor vehicles under the guise of investigations.

According to the restriction notice issued by ACC director-general Roselyn Wandi, Mr Simumba was being investigated on offences he was alleged to have committed under Part IV of the ACC Act number 42 of 1996.

Ms Wandi directed that Mr Simumba should not dispose off his 20 motor vehicles and properties numbered L/36650/M on title number 69104, F/669/27 on F/687/A/1/A/2/B- L8353, F./687/A/1/A/2 on title number 27675 and 4, 000, 000 shares in Fresh Direct Zambia Limited without the consent of ACC.

The motor vehicles are registration numbers AAR 8702, AAT 3188, AAX7710, AAZ 611, AAZ 612, AAZ 5271, AAZ 5272, AAZ 5275, ABC 303, ABC 304, ABC 305, ABE 4902, ABE 4903, ABE 4904, ABE 4905, ABE 5005, ABE 5666, ABJ 4275, ABJ 4922, ABE 4922 and AABJ 5092.

Investigations against Mr Simumba were instituted after BOZ lodged a complaint against him.

But Mr Simumba said on June 2009, his lawyers wrote to ACC demanding for the removal of the restriction notice and on June 15, 2009, the ACC responded that the restriction would remain in force.

He said because the restriction order has remained in force, he was unable to do a lot of transactions and his travel was restricted.

Mr Simumba said he made several other representations to ACC in which he highlighted the fact that there was no basis for the continued harassment and intimidation he was going through.

He said to date, there had been no charge slapped on him but the restriction notice on his properties had continued.

Mr Simumba described the restriction notice as abuse of authority and generally abusive on his persona and properties. He said that was why he wanted the court to intervene.