For months, some people mocked us. They called us alarmists. They called us enemies of progress.
They accused us of opposing legislation simply because we sit on the other side of the political divide. When we raised concerns about the Public Gatherings Bill in Zambia, we were told we did not understand the law. We were told we were defending disorder.
We were told we wanted confusion and lawlessness to continue. Today, I ask those same people a simple question: what do you have to say now? President Hakainde Hichilema has declined to assent to the Public Gatherings Bill and has returned it to Parliament for reconsideration.
Read Full Article on Lusaka Times
[paywall]
State House confirmed on Wednesday, in a press release issued by Chief Communications Specialist Clayson Hamasaka, that the President invoked Article 66(1)(b) of the Constitution and cited inconsistencies between the current draft and well-established judicial precedents. The President, while acknowledging positive elements within the bill, was not satisfied that the legislation was fully aligned with the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under Part III of the Republican Constitution. That is precisely the issue many of us raised.
The reaction from some quarters has been interesting to watch. The same voices that spent months attacking those who questioned the bill are now celebrating the President’s decision. The same people who dismissed every criticism are suddenly discovering the very concerns they previously refused to acknowledge.
That is why this moment matters. The Public Gatherings Bill did not begin as a bad idea. For decades, many Zambians have supported efforts to replace the colonial-era Public Order Act of 1955, a law long condemned as an instrument of political suppression that infringed on the rights of citizens to gather, demonstrate, picket and freely register their grievances.
The desire to strengthen freedoms of assembly and public participation is not a partisan position. It is a democratic position. Many stakeholders invested time and resources into reform efforts aimed at producing legislation that would protect rights while maintaining public order.
That was the objective. That was the promise. That was the expectation.
Somewhere along the way, however, the bill changed. What was presented to Parliament was no longer the progressive reform many people had worked towards. Instead, it contained provisions that generated serious concern among legal practitioners, civil society actors, cooperating partners and ordinary citizens.
Those concerns were not invented. They were not imagined. They were not malicious.
They were genuine. Many people spoke out. Some wrote detailed analyses.
Others engaged Members of Parliament and officials within the Ministry of Justice. Questions were raised about whether certain provisions were consistent with constitutional protections and established legal principles. Rather than engage those concerns on their merits, many chose to attack the messengers.
That has become a familiar pattern. We saw similar concerns emerge around the Cyber Crimes and Security legislation. We saw similar questions raised regarding surveillance-related proposals.
Every time legitimate criticism is offered, there is an attempt to portray critics as enemies rather than citizens participating in democratic discourse. Yet what has happened with the Public Gatherings Bill should serve as a lesson. The President himself has now acknowledged that the legislation requires further scrutiny.
His decision does not automatically mean every criticism was correct. Neither does it mean every provision in the bill is flawed. What it does mean is that concerns existed and those concerns deserved to be taken seriously.
[/paywall]
All Zim News – Bringing you the latest news and updates.
