Sangwa says constitutional amendment process predetermined

Sangwa says constitutional amendment process predetermined

Constitutional lawyer John Sangwa says the outcome of the Bill 7 constitutional review is effectively predetermined, arguing that the process has not created space for meaningful public participation. Speaking during an online discussion, he said the procedure appears to follow a preset script that validates decisions made before citizens were invited to contribute.

He noted that the Technical Committee was given a fixed timeline that limits genuine consultation, despite the long-term implications of constitutional amendments. Sangwa said a process of this magnitude should be anchored in broad national engagement, but the current approach signals that public views may have little influence on the final outcome.

He pointed to previous amendment cycles, which he said allowed wider public dialogue and adequate time for civic groups and stakeholders to review proposals. The present structure, he argued, is restrictive and rushed, creating the impression that submissions will not alter the direction of the reforms.

Sangwa also raised concerns about transparency, saying the Technical Committee began work before its full terms of reference were made public. He questioned whether the committee is operating within the constitutional framework or under administrative limitations that narrow its independence.

He described the exercise as one that risks becoming a procedural formality, warning that review processes conducted without genuine public involvement erode trust in institutions. For him, the Constitution should not be amended through mechanisms that sideline citizens, who ultimately bear the impact of changes to governance systems, electoral rules and checks on state power.

He further questioned whether the committee’s work meets standards set by the Constitutional Court, citing a 2016 ruling that emphasised the need for clear, participatory procedures in constitutional reforms. Sangwa said some proposals under discussion resemble earlier amendments rejected under Bill 10, raising concerns that the current effort may be revisiting ideas already dismissed through public opposition.

He warned that the compressed timeline reduces room for debate on core issues such as separation of powers, institutional design and electoral governance. Effective amendments, he said, require deliberate analysis, adequate feedback periods and openness. Without these elements, reforms are unlikely to withstand scrutiny.

Sangwa urged citizens to assess whether their contributions will meaningfully shape the final document. He said a process characterised by limited transparency and tight deadlines risks producing reforms that do not address the country’s underlying governance challenges.

He also noted the political weight of constitutional amendments, saying rushed changes often create perceptions that reforms are intended to serve specific interests. He called on authorities to demonstrate credibility by widening consultation and ensuring that the review is genuinely public-driven.

Sangwa stressed that constitutional changes must reinforce, rather than weaken, democratic safeguards. He said no amendment should proceed if it compromises checks and balances or undermines institutional independence. The public, he added, expects reforms to advance fairness, clarity and long-term national stability.

He concluded that constitutional review efforts grounded in broad dialogue are more likely to produce credible and durable outcomes. Without such foundations, he said, the Bill 7 process risks losing legitimacy and failing to reflect the views of citizens.

Debate over Bill 7 continues to intensify among legal experts, civil society and political actors as the Technical Committee moves closer to presenting its final recommendations to government.