The Oasis Forum, a coalition of church, civil society, and legal bodies, has issued a statement responding to President Hakainde Hichilema’s appointment of a Technical Committee to consult citizens and draft amendments to the Constitution. The statement was presented during a media conference held on Thursday, 17th October 2025, at the Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ) Boardroom.
The Oasis Forum—comprising the Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ), the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ), the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), the Non-Governmental Gender Organisations’ Coordinating Council (NGOCC), and the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB)—acknowledged the President’s announcement made on 7th October 2025.
The group described the appointment of the Technical Committee as a “positive step” in Zambia’s long-standing constitutional reform process, especially as it follows the Constitutional Court ruling in the case of Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila vs Attorney General (2025/CC7/009), which nullified the initiation process of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025.
However, while welcoming the intent behind the decision, the Oasis Forum expressed concern that the current approach does not align with the inclusive and established procedures that have guided previous constitutional reform processes. The Forum stated that although the initiative may be progressive in spirit, it “falls short of the correct procedural path necessary to guarantee legitimacy and broad-based ownership of the outcome.”
According to the Forum, the mere appointment of a Technical Committee is “not sufficient to yield a legitimate, holistic constitutional reform process” unless measures are urgently implemented to strengthen and safeguard the process.
Although the initiative may be progressive in spirit, it “falls short of the correct procedural path necessary to guarantee legitimacy and broad-based ownership of the outcome.”
The Forum also raised concerns over the lack of transparency surrounding the Committee’s Terms of Reference, which it said remained undisclosed to the public even after the appointment and swearing-in of its members. The statement noted that this lack of clarity had fueled public fears about transparency and accountability in the process.
In light of these concerns, the Oasis Forum called on the government to enact a legal framework to guide and protect the work of the Technical Committee. Such a framework, it said, should ensure the Committee’s independence, transparency, and accountability.
Timeline and Elections
The Oasis Forum further cautioned against linking the constitutional reform process to the 2026 General Elections. The statement emphasized that the purpose of the reforms should be to “strengthen democratic institutions and expand the Bill of Rights,” rather than serve as a “quick fix for electoral purposes.”
The Forum urged that the timeline and roadmap for the Technical Committee’s work be insulated from electoral pressures to allow for broader national consultation and consensus building.
Call for Withdrawal of Bill No. 7
The Forum also addressed the continued presence of Bill No. 7 of 2025 before the National Assembly, despite the Constitutional Court having declared its initiation unconstitutional. In its ruling in Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila vs Attorney General (2025/CC2/009), the Court determined that the process leading to Bill No. 7 was a nullity.
The Oasis Forum stated that keeping the Bill before Parliament undermines public trust and called on the government to formally withdraw it as a demonstration of good faith. The statement warned that any attempt to base the new consultations or draft amendments on the discredited Bill would amount to “resurrecting an illegitimate process” and would erode public confidence in the reform efforts.
Commitment to Good Governance
In its conclusion, the Oasis Forum reaffirmed its commitment to promoting constitutionalism, the rule of law, and good governance. The statement underscored that these principles are “essential for Zambia’s democratic advancement and the welfare of its citizens.”
The press statement was duly signed by the convenors of the Oasis Forum and represented the collective stance of the member institutions: CCZ, EFZ, LAZ, NGOCC, and ZCCB.
Reading this article, I’m reminded that checks and balances aren’t only about the branches of government but also about political parties. When parties push an agenda, they shouldn’t hide behind “government”; governance must be guided by the constitution. The Oasis Forum’s call for a transparent, independent, and inclusive constitutional reform process and for withdrawing Bill No. 7 highlights the need for constitutional legitimacy and broad-based ownership, not electoral convenience. Elections move us, but the constitution must remain the framework.
Reading this article, I’m reminded that checks and balances must apply to all political parties, not just the branches of government. When any party pushes an agenda, governance should be guided by the constitution, not partisan interests. The Oasis Forum’s call for a transparent, independent, and inclusive constitutional reform process and for withdrawing Bill No. 7 underscores the need for constitutional legitimacy and broad-based ownership, not electoral convenience. Elections move us forward, but the constitution must remain the framework for rule of law and good governance.
Are we going to put this sacred final document to the people of Zambia to approve in a referendum? That’s the way it should be done.
“I did it my way” sung by Fank Sinatra
Question for Lusaka Times: In a democracy, should the
government’s role extend to shaping what gets published, or should the constitution and independent institutions defend the space for open, accountable discourse? If checks and balances include political parties, how can we ensure that governance remains anchored in the constitution rather than electoral convenience? The Oasis Forum calls for transparent, inclusive constitutional reform and for withdrawing Bill No. 7-how can we expand constitutional legitimacy and broad ownership through government actions, not just through elections?
Question for Lusaka Times: In a democracy, should the
government’s role extend to shaping what gets published, or should the constitution and independent institutions defend the space for open, accountable discourse?