Political and Civil Society Leaders Intensify Pushback on Bill 7

Political and Civil Society Leaders Intensify Pushback on Bill 7

Debate surrounding the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Bill 7 of 2025 has intensified as political leaders, civic organisations, and sections of the Church continue to raise questions about the proposed changes. The discussions have become more pronounced following renewed calls for peaceful demonstrations led by the Oasis Forum, a coalition of civil society bodies that has historically taken strong positions on governance matters.

A number of political parties have taken a firm stance against the Bill. Socialist Party leader Fred M’membe, Citizens First President Harry Kalaba, and New Heritage Party President Chishala Kateka have each voiced concerns about the direction and timing of the reform process. Their comments have placed additional focus on the underlying intentions of the proposal and prompted a wider public review of its potential impact.

At the centre of the objections is a belief among some critics that the Bill includes provisions that could influence the distribution of authority within the country’s governance structure. While government officials state that the amendments are intended to strengthen institutions and refine administrative processes, those opposed argue that the document requires broader consultation and clearer explanation before it is taken forward.

Dr. M’membe and other political figures insist that constitutional reform must be undertaken only after extensive dialogue that includes a cross section of citizens. They maintain that constitutional changes should not be advanced without opportunities for consensus building and public participation. Several leaders have said the protest calls represent an attempt to ensure that the voices of ordinary citizens are included in the process.

The position taken by the Catholic Church adds another dimension to the national discussion. The Church has been consistent in expressing concern whenever fundamental legal changes are placed before the public. During previous debates such as the 2016 referendum on the Bill of Rights, the Church encouraged broad civic engagement and careful examination of proposed reforms. In the current process, Church representatives have noted that certain provisions may affect monitoring mechanisms that safeguard accountability and public oversight.

Legal commentary from the Law Association of Zambia has also influenced the debate. LAZ President Lungisani Lungu has highlighted the Association’s preference for reforms that are protected from partisan interests. LAZ has encouraged the public to participate in reviewing the document and has supported the Oasis Forum’s call for peaceful civic engagement. The organisation’s involvement in constitutional matters frequently shapes public confidence in legal processes, making its contribution an important factor in the ongoing discussions.

Despite the visible opposition, the national response to the Bill remains mixed. While several groups have been vocal in their criticism, others continue to analyse the proposed changes or wait for additional information. Civil servants, community leaders, and various civic actors have noted that they are still reviewing the details of the Bill and studying its implications for governance. Zambia’s history of constitutional debate suggests that strong public reactions are common whenever amendments are proposed.

Some observers believe that political considerations may also be driving the positions taken by certain groups. In highly competitive political environments, major legislative proposals frequently become platforms for demonstrating political visibility. However, advocates of the protests maintain that their actions are rooted in a belief that constitutional changes must emerge from transparent dialogue.

As discussions continue, the Bill has become a central topic in political, legal, and civic circles. The debate reflects differing interpretations of its impact and the importance of reaching agreement on reforms that carry national consequences. The process has also tested the country’s ability to handle competing views while maintaining respect for lawful engagement.

The national conversation is expected to continue as more citizens examine the Bill and as stakeholder groups refine their positions. The focus remains on whether the country can build a reform process that reflects broad participation while safeguarding the principles of constitutional governance.