ACC Acknowledges Mwamba Complaint as Bill 7 Becomes Law

ACC Acknowledges Mwamba Complaint as Bill 7 Becomes Law
The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has formally acknowledged receipt of a complaint by former Ambassador Emmanuel Mwamba alleging bribery, inducements, and intimidation of Members of Parliament in the lead-up to the passage of Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7, even as the Bill has since been assented to by President Hakainde Hichilema and is now law.

The acknowledgment, stamped by the Office of the Director General on December 17, 2025, confirms that the complaint has been formally received and placed on record, marking the first documented institutional response to the corruption allegations linked to the Bill 7 vote.

President Hichilema assented to Bill 7 after its passage by Parliament during a Special Session held on December 15, 2025, completing the legislative process despite ongoing legal, political, and procedural disputes surrounding the Bill. The assent means that the constitutional amendment now has the force of law, irrespective of unresolved allegations relating to the manner in which parliamentary support was secured.

In his complaint dated December 16, 2025 and addressed to ACC Director General Daphne Pauline Soko Chabu, Mwamba alleges that agents or representatives linked to the President offered cash payments, gifts, and threats of arrest to MPs to influence the outcome of the Bill 7 vote.

The complaint claims that a group of Patriotic Front and Independent MPs were transported and flown to an executive lodge in the Lower Zambezi area, where they were allegedly kept until voting day. Mwamba alleges that the MPs each received US$150,000, paid in two instalments before and after the vote.

The letter further alleges that the operation was coordinated by State House Special Assistant for Politics Levy Ngoma, with additional claims that Government Deputy Chief Whip Likando Mufalali made similar payments to ruling-party backbenchers. It also alleges that some MPs were contacted by officers from the Zambia Police Criminal Investigations Department and threatened with arrest if they failed to support the Bill.

All claims remain allegations, and no findings have been made by the ACC.

The passage and assent of Bill 7 occurred against a backdrop of sustained controversy. Earlier in 2025, the Constitutional Court had declared the Bill unconstitutional and void, citing the absence of a legal framework and insufficient public consultation.

Despite that ruling, the Bill was revived through parliamentary procedures, culminating in its approval during the December Special Session and subsequent presidential assent. The enactment of the law has not extinguished the corruption allegations, which relate to the conduct surrounding the vote rather than the formal legality of assent itself.

In parallel with the legal developments, political consequences have begun to unfold. Opposition political structures have moved to expel some of the MPs alleged to have received inducements, citing disciplinary breaches linked to their conduct during the Bill 7 vote.

The expulsions, announced after the Bill had already been passed and assented to, have introduced an additional layer of complexity, raising questions about accountability, timing, and the practical consequences of disciplinary action after legislative outcomes have already been finalised.

No court has ruled on the legality or effect of the expulsions, and no by-elections have been triggered at this stage.

While the ACC’s acknowledgment confirms receipt of the complaint, it does not indicate whether investigations have commenced or whether any preliminary assessment has been made. Under the Anti-Corruption Act No. 3 of 2012, the Commission is mandated to investigate allegations involving public officials, including Members of Parliament and executive actors.

The complaint places the Commission in the position of examining allegations that touch the highest levels of the executive, even as the law whose passage is in question has already taken effect.

For now, the acknowledgment serves as a procedural record rather than a substantive determination. Whether the allegations lead to investigations, prosecutions, or remain archived as part of the official record remains an open question.