Make It Law, and Explain Later – Bill 7 Depends on a Report No One Is Allowed to See

Make It Law, and Explain Later – Bill 7 Depends on a Report No One Is Allowed to See

Testimony before a Parliamentary Select Committee examining Bill 7 has renewed questions about the legality, transparency, and structural implications of the proposed constitutional amendments after senior officials from the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) revealed that the Executive holds full custody of the delimitation report that informs the Bill’s most contested provisions.

The exchange unfolded when Hon Garry Nkombo pressed the Commission to state when the public would be informed about which constituencies are due for delimitation. The question is central to the Bill 7 controversy because constituency boundaries directly shape political representation, the distribution of power in Parliament, and the weight of the vote in future elections.

In response, the ECZ confirmed that a national consultation exercise undertaken in 2019 produced a full delimitation report which was initially submitted to the Executive and was later revised and resubmitted. According to the Commission, the document that determines the number and configuration of constituencies is now entirely in the hands of the Executive and cannot be made public unless the Executive authorises its release.

The Commission added that once a constitutional amendment is enacted, its responsibility would be limited to publishing a statutory instrument detailing the final boundaries based on decisions already taken. This means the defining phase of delimitation, including which constituencies may be divided or merged, is shielded from public exposure until after the Bill becomes law.

The admission sharpened concerns that Bill 7 risks placing decisive electoral architecture under the influence of the Executive rather than an independent body operating under open procedures. Critics argue that delimitation should precede any lawmaking in order to allow for public scrutiny, stakeholder engagement, and transparent justification for boundary changes. Instead, the committee learned that the determinative process was completed internally and remains confidential.

Legal scholars have stated in earlier commentary that Bill 7 faces existing procedural challenges even before its substantive content is considered. Under Article 79 of the Constitution and relevant Standing Orders, constitutional amendments must follow a defined sequence of public participation, parliamentary debate, and transparent committee review. Opponents say the Bill did not meet these standards following the previous decision by the House not to proceed with a similar amendment in the same session. They argue that the attempt to reintroduce the Bill contravenes the rule preventing repetition of a rejected constitutional amendment.

The latest testimony adds another layer by indicating that the substantive content of the Bill draws from a report that the public, civil society, and even many MPs have not seen. Without access to the data and analysis underpinning the delimitation exercise, stakeholders cannot evaluate whether the proposed increase in constituencies is justified, whether population thresholds have been applied consistently, or whether the changes risk creating imbalances in representation.

Concern also arises from the sequence described to the committee. The ECZ suggested that its role activates only after constitutional amendment, not before. This structure effectively allows the Executive to propose a constitutional change anchored in a report it alone controls, then task the Commission with formalising that outcome through a statutory instrument. Parliamentary oversight is weakened if lawmakers cannot access the foundational report before voting on the amendment.

Civil society groups have previously warned that delimitation exercises should be public from start to finish, with clear demographic data, open hearings, and a published rationale for any boundary adjustments. The absence of such visibility in the process described to the committee has revived fears that Bill 7 consolidates power rather than distributing it.

The committee is expected to continue receiving submissions, but the nature of the testimony has increased pressure on the Executive to release the delimitation report and explain the methodology used. Parliamentary sources say members want clarity on whether the changes recommended by the Commission align with national demographic trends or whether alterations risk favouring specific political outcomes.

The debate surrounding Bill 7 continues to widen as lawmakers, legal experts, and civic organisations assess the implications of a reform package shaped by information that remains outside public reach.

Below is the recording from The Selct Committeee

( Honorable Nkombo Chairman, I see that the Commission, good morning and welcome, um, supports the clause for delimitation of constituencies. I would like to find out, Chair, at what stage the Commission is going to communicate to the nation which constituencies will be due for delimitation. Thank you, Honorable Nkombo.

Witness, please take note. Thank you, Honorable Nkombo Chairperson. At this stage, I seek your indulgence to invite my colleagues to respond to some of the clarifications.

I’ll speak to the first question in terms of where Honorable Nkombo sought clarity from the Commission as to when the Commission will indicate to the people of Zambia which constituencies are earmarked for delimitation. Honorable Chairperson, your committee may wish to note that following the public consultation exercise that the Commission, the Electoral Commission of Zambia undertook in 2019, a report was prepared and that report was submitted to the Executive. It is that report, Honorable Chairperson, that has since been revised to, and again submitted to the Executive to inform the number that is indicated in the bill.

Honorable Chairperson, once the Electoral Commission of Zambia submits that report, or such a report to the Executive, it is no longer in the hands of the Commission to release that report to the public. It is with the Executive. So where the Commission stands is now to await for the amendment of the Constitution and once the implementation, the actual implementation of the new constituencies is done, indicate so the new boundaries of the constituencies in a statutory instrument and thereby inform the public of which constituencies have since been established following the amendment to the Constitution.

Chair, I submit.)