Lusaka businessman Harry Findlay has been convicted and fined a total of K240,000 (Zambian Kwacha) for two distinct immigration-related offences. Chief Resident Magistrate Sylvia Munyinya found Findlay guilty, ruling that the State had proven both charges beyond reasonable doubt. He faced the prospect of imprisonment if unable to pay the fine, highlighting the stringent enforcement of Zambia's immigration and national security laws.

The first charge pertained to holding more than one Zambian passport. Magistrate Munyinya observed that Findlay was issued a second passport in November 2019, valid until 2029, despite already possessing one issued in March 2017, valid until 2027. Immigration records confirmed there was no lawful justification for the additional passport. Findlay's defense claimed he applied for a new passport because his previous one was full and contained valid visas, and also due to a reported loss of passport ZP013259 before acquiring ZP021382. However, the court found that by the time the second passport was issued, the visas in the older passport had expired, undermining his explanation. The court concluded that Findlay knew he possessed and actively used multiple passports, contrary to Section 22(1) as read together with Section 22(2) of the Passport Act of Zambia.

The second, more severe charge, involved possessing a passport with a forged Mwami Border Control immigration endorsement dated October 3, 2022. The court determined that the endorsement was fake, stating it “told a lie about itself.” Findlay was found to be in possession of the passport containing the falsified stamp and was aware of its nature, offering no lawful justification for it. His argument that the disputed stamp was merely “blurred but genuine” was rejected. The court concluded that all elements of the offence under Section 52(4)(e) as read together with Section 56(1) of the Immigration and Deportation Act No. 18 of 2010 were satisfied, leading to his conviction on this count as well.

For the first count, Magistrate Munyinya imposed a fine of K180,000, and for the second, a fine of K60,000, both payable immediately. Should Findlay default on payment, he would serve simple imprisonment. Initially, it was stated that he would serve six months for the first count and four months for the second, running cumulatively. However, the court's final ruling clarified that the sentences would run concurrently, meaning the total effective time he would serve in default of the K240,000 fine is six months simple imprisonment.

In mitigation, Findlay's wife, Dessislava Findlay, who was part of his legal defence team, pleaded for leniency. She described him as a first-time offender, a businessman employing numerous workers, a taxpayer, a family man with dependants, and someone in poor health. She argued that the offences were regulatory in nature and typically attracted non-custodial sentences. Despite the mitigation plea, the court upheld the conviction and fines, emphasizing the importance of adhering to national security and immigration regulations.