Constitutional lawyers say new Technical Committee lacks legality
Prominent Lusaka lawyers have criticised the Terms of Reference (TORs) guiding the newly constituted Technical Committee on the Constitution, describing them as illegal, politically motivated, and designed to advance partisan interests rather than genuine reform.
Mr Celestine Mukandila and Jonas Zimba said the TORs issued by the government mirror the controversial Constitution (Amendment) Bill No. 7, which Parliament deferred earlier, and warned that the process risks eroding public trust in the country’s governance framework.
Mukandila, a constitutional lawyer, dismissed the current process as “an executive-led blank cheque” that allows members to benefit financially while bypassing the safeguards provided under the Inquiries Act, which previously governed constitutional review mechanisms.
“We want to repeat our earlier stance that this process is flawed and illegal,” Mukandila said. “Ordinarily, a well-intended constitutional amendment exercise must operate within the Inquiries Act, which clearly defines the scope, powers, and timeframe of such a committee. The current arrangement does not meet that standard.”
He warned that without a clear roadmap and legal framework, there would be no effective means of holding committee members accountable for their actions or expenditures. “In essence, we are looking at colleagues who have been given a leeway to enrich themselves using state resources without any proper oversight,” he added.
Meanwhile, lawyer Jonas Zimba said the TORs risk turning the Technical Committee into “an executor of a predetermined agenda.” He noted that the approach undermines constitutionalism and ignores the Constitutional Court’s earlier guidance in the Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila judgment, which ruled that the process must begin afresh rather than revisiting the rejected Bill 7.
“We believe the TORs are coming as a result of pressure from civil-society organisations after the initial rushed process. But rather than learn from past mistakes, the government has simply repackaged the same defective framework,” Zimba said.
He cautioned that the new process could repeat the errors that derailed previous reform efforts. “Zambians are not asking for cosmetic amendments. They want a holistic, inclusive review that strengthens governance, not one that secures electoral advantage for the ruling elite,” he explained.
Zimba echoed the Oasis Forum’s position that the process should be withdrawn entirely. “The goal of constitutional amendment is to make governance better, not serve political expedience,” he said.
The lawyers’ comments follow growing national concern about the direction of constitutional reform. Several civic organisations and church bodies, including the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia and the Council of Churches in Zambia, have called on government to ensure that any review is people-driven and transparent.
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has also urged authorities to clarify the TORs and to publish a detailed roadmap, including timelines and consultation mechanisms.
Opposition parties have seized on the controversy as further evidence of what they call an erosion of democratic practice. Some have accused government of attempting to “smuggle back” rejected provisions from Bill 7 through a less accountable process.
Despite the criticism, officials from the Ministry of Justice insist the Technical Committee will operate within constitutional bounds and that its work is intended to facilitate broad consultation. However, as of yesterday, the ministry had not released the full list of committee members or their specific mandates.
Zimba concluded that the only sustainable path forward is to suspend the current process and restart under a transparent, legally grounded framework. “This country deserves a constitution made by consensus, not convenience,” he said.
