The constitutional amendment process surrounding Bill 7 has entered a new and contentious phase, with the Executive pressing forward despite a Constitutional Court judgment, Standing Orders, and the Technical Committee’s own report indicating that the Bill cannot lawfully proceed. The developments have raised concerns about the legitimacy of the process, the treatment of stakeholders, and the broader effect on public confidence in constitutional reform. Bill 7 was halted earlier in the year when the Constitutional Court ruled that the process leading to the amendment was unconstitutional.
The ruling effectively rendered the Bill a nullity, as an unlawful process cannot anchor a valid constitutional amendment. The Standing Orders of the National Assembly reinforce this position by blocking any revival of a lapsed Bill during the same parliamentary session and requiring gazetting for any materially altered version. Despite these restrictions, the Executive has positioned Bill 7 back on the parliamentary agenda without rectifying the defects identified by the Court or following the procedural steps required by the Standing Orders.
The return of Bill 7 to Parliament has created concern among those following the process closely, particularly because the core parameters of the amendment remain unchanged. The Technical Committee, established to draft amendments and produce a detailed evaluative report, delivered its work on 1 December 2025. However, its output did not alter the direction or substance of the amendment.
Read Full Article on Lusaka Times
[paywall]
The committee’s role has been questioned, with observations that the Executive treated its draft and report as formalities rather than as substantive guidance or corrective mechanisms. The unchanged return of Bill 7 to Parliament has contributed to perceptions that the committee served mainly as a procedural layer rather than an independent phase of reform. Concerns have also emerged over the contrasting manner in which different civil society organisations were engaged during the consultation period.
A meeting held on Friday with organisations that openly supported Bill 7 was carried live on television, with prepared speeches and coordinated presentations. The broadcast created the appearance of broad support, allowing the Executive to frame the constitutional review as inclusive and publicly endorsed. In contrast, the meeting with the Oasis Forum was held off camera, despite the organisation’s longstanding engagement on constitutional reform and its widely known objections to the process.
The Oasis Forum has not opposed constitutional amendments themselves but has consistently raised questions about the legality, timing and pace of the Bill 7 process. The closed meeting limited transparency on their contributions and concerns, and it occurred shortly before the Technical Committee’s submission was delivered. This sequence, together with the rapid return of Bill 7 to Parliament, has fuelled views that the Executive sought to limit the public visibility of dissenting voices while amplifying supportive ones.
The decision to hold a televised session for selected organisations and a closed session for the Oasis Forum formed part of a broader pattern that civil society groups have highlighted. These groups point to the timeline of events, the procedural choices made, and the lack of meaningful incorporation of stakeholder feedback as indicators of a predetermined outcome. The timing has also drawn attention, occurring just days before protest actions planned by organisations opposed to the amendment process.
The Executive’s strategy has been interpreted as an effort to dilute or pre-empt public mobilisation by projecting an image of consensus ahead of parliamentary deliberation. The Technical Committee’s report, which outlined the necessary conditions for a lawful and credible amendment process, has not shifted the Executive’s position. The Bill’s reintroduction in its previous form points to an insistence on maintaining the initial framework, despite judicial findings, procedural barriers and public appeals for broader consultation and transparency.
This has intensified debate over the state of constitutional governance and the relationship between the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature. Across the governance landscape, the central issue remains unchanged: the Bill was nullified by the Constitutional Court due to its unconstitutional foundation. Given that a Bill cannot be resuscitated once lapsed and cannot be reintroduced in the same session without meeting specific procedural requirements, its return to the House has placed Parliament in a difficult position.
If advanced without correcting the original defects, the process risks contradicting the very constitutional standards it seeks to amend. As the debate continues, the focus remains on whether constitutional changes can proceed in a manner that upholds legality, transparency and public trust. With stakeholders divided and key institutional safeguards overlooked, the future of Bill 7 continues to raise questions about the integrity of the amendment process and the balance of power among Zambia’s governing institutions.
[/paywall]
