The Ballot Is the Answer to Assented Bill 7 – Sangwa
With Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 now signed into law, constitutional lawyer John Sangwa says the terrain of opposition has shifted decisively. The legal battle, he argues, has given way to a political one, and the remaining arena is the ballot box.
For months, Bill 7 dominated public debate, drawing sharp reactions from sections of civil society, churches, legal practitioners, and opposition figures who questioned both its substance and the manner of its passage. That debate has not ended. But with presidential assent secured, Sangwa says the nature of resistance must change.
Once a constitutional amendment becomes law, the pathways for reversal narrow. Courts may still interpret its provisions, but repeal or alteration now rests with future legislatures. That reality, in Sangwa’s view, places renewed emphasis on electoral participation rather than public outrage.
The signing of Bill 7 has intensified frustration among its critics, many of whom see assent as confirmation that their concerns were ignored. Sangwa does not dispute the depth of that disappointment. What he challenges is the response it provokes.
Withdrawal, he warns, is the most counterproductive reaction available. Disengagement does not weaken a law already in force; it insulates it. The only mechanism capable of revisiting Bill 7, he argues, is a Parliament elected with a mandate to amend or repeal it.
That requires a shift in strategy. Opposition to Bill 7 can no longer be framed as an attempt to stop its passage. It must now be articulated as a political programme aimed at changing the composition of the National Assembly.
The argument is procedural rather than emotional. Constitutional amendments are enacted by legislatures. Legislatures are chosen by voters. That chain, Sangwa notes, is unbroken even when outcomes are unpopular.
In that sense, Bill 7’s enactment clarifies rather than complicates the task ahead. It removes ambiguity about what must be done next. Those who oppose the amendment must organise around elections, not simply protest its existence.
Sangwa places responsibility squarely on voters to demand explicit commitments from candidates. Silence or ambiguity on Bill 7 should no longer be acceptable, he argues, given that the law is now in force and its consequences will unfold over time.
Campaigns, in this context, are not abstract contests between personalities. They become referendums on legislative choices. Bill 7, once an item of parliamentary procedure, now becomes a test of political accountability.
He also cautions against treating assent as the end of constitutional debate. Zambia’s constitutional history is marked by repeated revisions, many of them driven by electoral turnover rather than judicial intervention. Laws endure not because they are uncontested, but because they survive political cycles.
That endurance can be challenged, Sangwa argues, only through sustained civic engagement. Voter registration, issue-based mobilisation, and turnout are no longer supplementary activities; they are the primary tools available to opponents of Bill 7.
Civil society institutions, he suggests, must recalibrate their messaging accordingly. The task is no longer to stop a bill, but to educate citizens on how laws are undone within democratic systems. That distinction matters, particularly for younger voters encountering constitutional politics for the first time.
There is also a warning embedded in his assessment. Constitutional fatigue, when met with resignation, creates space for permanence. Laws become entrenched not solely through power, but through indifference.
The enactment of Bill 7 therefore sharpens the choice before its critics. They can treat assent as defeat, or as the starting point of a longer political contest. One path leads to quiet acquiescence. The other demands organisation.
Sangwa’s conclusion is unsentimental. Constitutional change is rarely reversed quickly. It is reversed deliberately, through elections that reshape legislatures and, over time, the laws they produce.
Bill 7 is now the law. Whether it remains so, he argues, will be decided not in protest alone, but in polling stations.
I voted for this government for bread and butter issues, Not vama constitutional reviews
The UPND has lamentably failed, the opposition is not offering any hope. No economic turn around plan advanced by these serial HH attackers called opposition
That is the way to go if people are serious about saving themselves before it is too late
WOZA, Peoples pact, UKA, Tonse and all the other opposition parties must disband with immediate effect and start farming. UPND has failed, so we expected somebody will come and say this is what we will do(tangible) to turn around the economy. The opposition is just waffling, when i see Kalaba as an example and without any convincing plan advanced to Zambians saying i am becoming President, i feel sorry for him and his followers.
Muzo you are right. The politicians have failed us and we are still trusting them. Looks like we have no options.
We are doomed. Doomed to directionless leadership, endless loadshedding, unending unemployment, HIPC forever, potholed roads forever, drainage- less capital cities that can’t manage garbage collections, thieving politicians and winless Chipolopolo. Where is Frederick Engels? Karl Marx? What follows when politics fails? Utopia? Hell?
Mr Sangwa sir, any update on your drive for million registered supporters by 31 Dec 2025?
Sangwa for President!!
The lawyer had no regards for the poor, but valued the corrupt national leaders including some past corrupt presidents, for they ever offered him huge amounts of money. Today the corruption is somehow suppressed and the corrupt presidents are dead. And realizing the dwindling of his firm, he changed to political avenues with presidential ambition where the majority of supporters are the same ordinary people he had despised. Now he is very confused because the ordinary people are showing him the tit for tat.
Continue day dreaming sir. When you wake up Sangwa will be in State House.
If there are any stinkiest skanks loitering the Zambian political landscape today, they’re called lawyers, SwangwaPO for one and Fube for another. Never ever vote for rotten hyenas like these, they’re just as bad and decomposed as Lungu, ki masipa feela!