Unpacking the dangers of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill

Part I

By Sishuwa Sishuwa

A national constitution is a social contract that sets out the rules by which the people agree to govern themselves. This explains why the making of a constitution or any amendment to it must always come from the people, bottom up. However, this has not always been the case.

Constitution-making or amendment has been a subject of fierce contestation between the people and the officials entrusted to manage public affairs – in this case, the presidency.Those in the executive arm of government often want to change, abuse, or simply ignore the rules in the constitution so that they can pursue their narrow interests while the people always
insist that the constitution reflects their aspirations and that the officials should respect it and promote the public good or common interests. This battle for greater control over the constitution is at the heart of the latest attempt by President Hakainde Hichilema to change Zambia’s constitution, a year before the country goes to the polls and less than ten years after
the Constitution was passed.

On 23 May 2025, the government published the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill Number 7 of 2025. The publication of Bill 7 represents the clearest evidence that Hichilema is proceeding to make changes to Zambia’s constitution despite strong public opposition to his plans. Broad sections of civil society, opposition parties, and ordinary citizens had asked
the president to abandon the exercise for four main reasons. The first is timing. Some argued that it is too early to change a Constitution that was only repealed and re-enacted in January 2016 with the full support of Hichilema’s members of parliament. Others suggested that the exercise, coming so close to the 13 August 2026 general election, risks being clouded by
partisan considerations and should be deferred to 2027. The second reason for objection is that changing the Constitution now is premature. Many of its provisions are yet to be tested, an essential way of identifying any possible shortcomings
that might require attention. Those that have been tested so far have acquitted themselves well. In fact, some of the institutions and statutes that are supposed to be created to support

the Constitution are yet to be actualised. A great example here is the Political Parties Bill which, according to Article 60 (4) of the current Constitution, should provide for: the establishment and management of a Political Parties’ Fund to provide financial support to political parties with seats in the National Assembly; the accounts of political parties which
are funded under the Political Parties’ Fund and the submission of audited accounts by political parties; the sources of funds for political parties; and the maximum amount of money to be used for campaigns during elections.

The third criticism rests on priorities: that constitutional reform, if at all it is necessary, is not an urgent concern of most Zambians who are grappling with a cost-of-living crisis, 17-hour daily power cuts, and massive corruption in government that has seen the United States cut aid to Zambia’s health sector. The final criticism is about lack of wider public participation. Unlike previous efforts, the latest effort at rewriting the constitution is primarily driven by the
executive. None of the latest proposals were agreed upon through broad consensus. As a result, they reflect the aspirations not of citizens but of those in power, primarily the president and governing party. 

In what has become his trademark response to public concerns, Hichilema simply ignored these combined objections to his plans, and the result is Bill 7. If enacted into law, the proposed changes would have dreadful consequences as they encourage corruption and undermine the principles, values, and legitimacy of the democratic system. There are eight major themes that run through the Bill. These include securing the president’s desire to control parliament; the exclusion of rival candidates through court-engineered disqualification of duly nominated candidates; giving political parties greater control over
elected officials by abolishing by-elections; and political cadrisation of the civil service from the top by lowering the constitutional qualifications for the role of Secretary to Cabinet.

Other themes are the constructive extension of the presidential term of office by removing references to a five-year fixed term of parliament and changing the meaning of a term; and the elimination of the risk of disqualification from seeking elective public office by removing corruption or malpractice from the constitution as a sufficient ground on which anyone may
petition a court to invalidate the completed nomination of a candidate – corrupt incumbent presidents are vulnerable targets here. The remaining themes are facilitating the use of public resources for political campaigns by moving the date of the dissolution of parliament from the current three months to a day before the general election whilst requiring MPs to do no
official work during the final three months; and increasing centralisation of government operations by reversing the 2016 amendment that barred MPs from being councillors, a move that weakened their powers over local authorities and undermined their ability to profit through increased business opportunities.

Over the course of this and next weeks, I will be analysing these themes in no particular order of importance, showing how the Bill’s main proposals are all linked to Hichilema’s partisan interests. As opposed to writing one lengthy commentary, I have decided to serialise my reflections into shorter instalments, spread or published across several days. This approach, I
hope, would enable in-depth discussion of the eight themes. Today, let us start with the first one.

Theme 1. Securing Control of Parliament
The first benefit that Hichilema seeks to achieve through Bill 7 is control of the National Assembly after the next general election or potentially even before. After using the executive-friendly Constitutional Court to block his main rival, former president Edgar Lungu, from contesting the 2026 election, Hichilema is relatively confident of winning. However, he is greatly concerned that he could win the presidential election but lose control of parliament, where rigging is harder, even with his supporters in charge of the country’s electoral management body. To avoid this, the president has proposed to alter the composition of the National Assembly by adding ninety-two new offices of members of parliament (MPs).
After spending a decade and half in opposition politics, Hichilema won the 2021 election with a clear mandate of 59 percent, defeating then incumbent president Edgar Lungu who polled 39 per cent of the total votes cast.However, Hichilema’s party only managed to secure 82 out of the available 156 seats in parliament. Even when the eight nominations that the constitution allows the president to appoint to parliament were added, the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) was still about 20 seats short of the two-thirds majority (111) needed to make changes to the constitution such as making it easier for the president to gain re-election and extending presidential terms. The former ruling party, the Patriotic Front (PF), won 60 seats while independent candidates secured a record 13 seats. To build the majority that his party was denied at the ballot, Hichilema has spent much of the last three and a half years stealing seats from the main opposition PF and independent lawmakers. To do this, he has abused state institutions such as the police and the judiciary, whose susceptibility to executive influence has enabled a record seven lawmakers to lose their parliamentary seats under dubious circumstances.

Despite these manoeuvres, Hichilema is yet to achieve a clear parliamentary majority, which he now hopes to secure through Bill 7 with three proposals. The first proposal is to create 55 new constituencies by dividing the existing ones into two or three constituencies based on a delimitation report that has been generated by his supporters in the Electoral Commission of
Zambia (ECZ). The report is yet to be made public, but sources in the electoral body disclosed that most of the constituencies that are earmarked for subdivision – such as Itezhi-tezhi and Namwala in Southern Province, Keembe in Central Province, Chongwe in Lusaka,Mufumbwe, Mwinilunga and Kasempa in Northwestern Province, and Senanga and Mulobezi in Western Province – are in in areas that have historically voted for Hichilema. Through gerrymandering, the president is hoping that his party will win most of these new seats, facilitating an even greater majority for the UPND and making it easier for it to make further changes to the constitution in the future.

The second proposal connected to this theme is the introduction of proportional representation that would see the creation of a total of 35 new parliamentary seats that are reserved for women (20 seats), youths (12), and persons with disabilities (3). No explanations have been offered on how these numbers were arrived at. Although the Bill says further mechanisms of how this proposal would work out will be spelt out in subsidiary legislation, it states that these seats will be distributed by the electoral body to political parties “in proportion to the total number of votes obtained by a political party on the proportional representation ballot”. Here, Hichilema is again confident that his party would receive the larger percentage of the votes on proportional representation for political parties and increase its overall majority in parliament.
The third proposal linked to this theme is the increase in the number of nominations to parliament that the constitution allows the president to make. At present, this number stands at 8 and has been like that since 1991. Hichilema is proposing to add two nominations to make it 10. Altogether, he is seeking, through Bill 7, to increase the total number of MPs from the current 164 to 256 in the hope that most of the new 92 seats would belong to his party, giving the president the elusive two-thirds majority that he has long sought and greater control over parliament. Should these proposals pass, they will therefore enable Hichilema to make further changes to the constitution after conducting either the by-elections that could be
created by the passage of Bill 7 or the next general election.
Although no explanation has been offered for the proposed increase in the number of
nominated members of the National Assembly, Hichilema’s administration has tendered two
reasons for the first two proposals. According to the Minister of Justice, Princess Kasune
Zulu, the decision to redraw constituency boundaries is meant to make them smaller, as some
MPs have blamed their failure to deliver services and the high turnover at elections on the
large size of their constituencies. This reason is misplaced because the constitutional role of
MPs in Zambia is to make laws, not to deliver services – a responsibility of the local
authorities.
The official justification for the proposed proportional representation is to guarantee seats for
women, youths, and persons with disabilities in the National Assembly. This too is most
unpersuasive. This is because Article 259 of the current Constitution already provides for the
appointment of members of these groups to the National Assembly and other public bodies to
promote inclusion and diversity. It states that “Where a person is empowered to make a
nomination or an appointment to a public office, that person shall ensure: that fifty percent of
each gender is nominated or appointed from the total available positions, unless it is not
practicable to do so; and equitable representation of the youth and persons with disabilities,
where these qualify for nomination or appointment.”
If women, youths, and persons with disabilities are currently underrepresented in the National
Assembly and other public offices, the problem is not the Constitution, but the lack of respect
for it by Hichilema and his officials who are empowered to make appointments. For instance,
even though the Constitution calls for equal gender representation in public offices, only four
of Hichilema’s 24 cabinet ministers are women, a contravention of the Constitution. To
address electoral imbalances, the Constitution, as earlier stated, allows the president
to nominate eight persons to parliament (all of whom could have been females and appointed
to Cabinet), but Hichilema filled all the slots with older men except one, the 76-year-old
Mutinta Mazoka. Only one of Hichilema’s ten provincial ministers is female, another
violation of the Constitution. In the understanding of the UPND, proportional representation
is meant to increase the participation of underrepresented minority groups in decision-making
positions. Since women constitute the majority demographic in Zambia, the proposal to

reserve 20 out of the 256 seats to them is not only an anomaly but also an attempt to water
down the existing constitutional provisions on gender parity.
Hichilema has further made no appointments of either youth, constitutionally defined as
someone between the ages of 18 and 35, or persons with disabilities to Cabinet, the National
Assembly, or provincial ministerial leadership – a clear violation of the Constitution. Taken
together, this concerning record shows that Hichilema is suffering from a disability of a
mental kind: the incapacity to follow the Constitution. If the president cannot do what the
Constitution currently demands of him, assuming he has read and understood it, why should
anyone believe that the addition of 20 women, 12 youths, and 3 persons with disabilities –
who will come from different political parties – is the missing cure to his demonstrated lack
of respect for the Constitution? Insisting that only the law can cure a character flaw such as
misogyny, or the lack of individual will to change for the better, is akin to having a lying or
thieving president who insists that he or she cannot stop stealing or telling lies unless the
national constitution is amended to provide for adequate provisions that encourage the truth
and honesty.
It is also worth noting that the low number of women, youths, and persons with disabilities in
parliament has little to do with the Constitution; it is a consequence of a long-standing
patriarchal culture in the main political parties that does not favour the adoption of members
of these groups during nominations for elective public office. For instance, both the UPND
and the PF adopted the lowest number of female and youth parliamentary candidates in the
2021 general election. As detailed in nearly all the reports of different election observation
missions, smaller opposition parties such as the Socialist Party and the Democratic Party had
more women and youths than male parliamentary candidates in 2021. Hichilema and the
UPND’s lack of respect for women, youths, and persons with disabilities is further illustrated
by the fact that they have not adopted a single representative of these groups in any of the
five parliamentary by-elections that have been held since the 2021 election. Only yesterday,
the ruling party announced that it has adopted an older, non-disabled, male person as its
candidate for the forthcoming Lumezi parliamentary by-election in Eastern Province. How
does Hichilema hope to fix a problem on national scale that he has failed to address in his
own party?
Based on current evidence, the problem of low representation of women is clearly not the
law; it is entrenched patriarchy, which, for Hichilema, regularly finds public expression in his

7
language and behaviour. Since the Constitution already provides for gender parity in public
appointments and for the inclusion of marginalised groups such as persons with disabilities,
what is needed is to enact subsidiary legislation that would give expression to these
constitutional principles such as compelling political parties to adopt more women, youths,
and persons with disabilities during elections. A more effective response is for UPND to take
to parliament the earlier mentioned and long-awaited Political Parties Bill that can require all
political parties contesting in a general election to ensure that at least fifty percent of their
adopted candidates for all elective public positions are women, youths, and persons with
disabilities. There is clearly no need to change the Constitution for the purpose of providing
what is already provided for in the current law. Proportional representation is a ruse meant to
hoodwink women, youths, and persons with disabilities into supporting Bill 7 based on the
false premise that it advances their interests when, in fact, it does not.
Moreover, in the run-up to the 2021 election, Hichilema’s predecessor, Lungu, took to
parliament a constitutional amendment bill, infamously known as Bill 10, which contained
some of the proposals that Hichilema is now seeking to introduce such as proportional
representation for women, youths, and persons with disabilities. Ironically, Lungu used the
same justifications that Hichilema and his officials are employing today in support of Bill 7.
At the time, Hichilema commendably instructed his MPs to reject Bill 10 on the ground that
the proposals represented a partisan rather than national exercise. What has changed today?
Why are the same proposals bad when presented by Lungu, but good when presented by
Hichilema and the UPND?
Is there any principle or belief that Hichilema held prior to the 2021 election – and which
earned him the support of many – that he has since not abandoned? What exactly does
Hichilema really stand for? Is it even worth exposing his hypocrisy on different key issues
since he appears to enjoy immunity from shame? Put differently, does Hichilema ever feel
guilt, shame, or embarrassment for all the lies and horrible things he says and does? For even
his most ardent supporters must concede that he is behaving disgracefully in power. It bothers
me greatly that Zambia has a president who constantly tells lies and easily changes his
position on many subjects whenever it is politically expedient but does not seem bothered by
how this despicable conduct erodes public trust in his leadership. If Hichilema can feel
shame, now would be a good time to start showing it in his actions, speech, and behaviour.
Failure to do this, citizens with an active conscience may have to assume the burden of
feeling embarrassed on his behalf, in addition to enduring the many hardships that his
administration has unleashed on them. If God gave me an opportunity to ask Him only one
question, it would be this: Mwelesa, bushe Hichilema mwamufumishe kwisa?