Only days after being stripped of his honorable title and convicted, former Lusaka Province Minister Bowman is challenging his conviction, claiming that the Economic and Financial Crimes Court exclusively considered the State’s evidence while disregarding his own.
The Bulldozer wants to challenge his four year conviction before the EFCC(High Court division).
On November 8, Lusambo was sentenced to four years imprisonment with hard labor for corrupt acquisition of public property, three years for possessing a car and four houses in Silverest gardens and fined him K9, 000 in each of the three counts of tax evasion in default nine months simple imprisonment. 
However, Lusambo is protesting his innocence saying the Lower Court erred in law and in fact when it convicted him for corrupt acquisition of public property in the absence of evidence that he possessed the property situated in Ndola during his tenure as a Public Officer; and that the said property was consequently sold as a direct violation of his tenure as a public officer.
He says there was evidence that he was not party to the transction relating to the sale of property no.L/39876/M in Ndola and in the absence of any evidence that he benefited from the said transaction by virtue of his public office.
Lusambo said magistrate Hamaundu erred in law and in fact when she convicted him for possessing property suspected to be proceeds of crime, in the absence of evidence connecting the transaction in Kitwe under the said count to the sale of the property owned by his sister in law’s Company.
The Bulldozer stated that the lower court erred in law and in fact when it convicted him for Tax evasion on the basis that he had not complied with the Law of sale to pay property transfer tax in relation to S/D B of S/d No. 2 of Farm No. 288a situate in Lusaka, Lot No. 19884/ M situate in Lusaka and MASAI/LN-1003028 in Masaiti Ndola.
Lusambo said the court disregarded the evidence that himself and the buyers agreed that the property transfer tax would be paid by the purchasers.
“The Court erred in law and in fact when it convicted the appellant for possession of property reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime in count 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the presence of evidence to the effect of how he obtained the four houses in Silverest gardens,” Lusambo stated.
The Bulldozer said magistrate Hamaundu erred in law and in fact in analysing the evidence in an unbalanced manner, preferring one-sided evidence, overlooking the flaws of one side and not the other, aswel as disregarding his evidence and produced exhibits with regards to ownership of the properties, and convicted him for possessing property suspected to be proceeds of crime.
