The real motive behind HH’s call for dialogue on Bill 7

The real motive behind HH’s call for dialogue on Bill 7

By Morgan Shansonga

The conversation around Bill 7 has reached a stage where the political temperature speaks louder than any prepared statement. Although many voices have stepped forward, including a detailed critique from Dr. Shishuwa Shishuwa, the essence of the matter is visible even without leaning on anyone’s commentary. The pace and method of the amendment process point to a presidency intent on securing constitutional changes before the country enters the turbulence of the 2026 campaign period.

My reading of the situation is straightforward. Bill 7 is not being pushed for cosmetic reasons. It is being pushed because it offers the executive a more predictable constitutional environment. The President prefers order, and he prefers controlling the terms under which national systems operate. From his viewpoint, revising the framework early reduces institutional disputes, limits legal shocks, and gives the administration a settled foundation ahead of an election year. But this political logic also explains why his call for dialogue surfaced only after the conversation moved out of quiet rooms and into the open.

The timing of the President’s appeal is telling. The technical committee has already completed most of its work. Public consultation, where it appeared, was narrow and scattered. For weeks, the bill advanced steadily without any clear sign that State House intended to slow down or widen the process. The moment civil society gathered momentum and the Oasis Forum announced a peaceful march, the tone shifted. Suddenly, the table was presented as the responsible alternative to public demonstration.

I see that shift not as an opening, but as an attempt to manage the clock. A public march—especially one led by clergy, lawyers, students, and ordinary citizens—immediately changes the national mood. It signals that the issue has outgrown political structures and entered the public conscience. Once that happens, parliamentary numbers are harder to secure. MPs become sensitive to the streets. The environment becomes unpredictable. And unpredictability is exactly what the administration wants to avoid at this stage.

The President’s emphasis on dialogue can therefore be interpreted as an effort to neutralise a moment that could disrupt the timeline. A meeting behind closed doors reduces visibility. It slows pressure. It allows the executive to regain control of the pace. A march does the opposite. It accelerates scrutiny, lifts the matter to a national spotlight, and forces every institution, including Parliament, to measure its decisions against public sentiment.

For anyone watching closely, the sequencing raises its own questions. If genuine dialogue was the intention, it should have come at the beginning. The technical committee would have been paused. Civil society would have been brought into the room before the process advanced. Instead, openness only arrived when public resistance became organised. That makes the invitation feel less like an attempt to build consensus and more like a way to soften the impact of civic mobilisation.

My concern is that the administration appears to be prioritising speed over confidence. Constitutional changes demand transparency. They demand broad legitimacy. They demand a process that is not only legal but also trusted. When people sense they are being invited into a discussion only after a decision is nearly final, they naturally question the motive.

Yet the presidency sees Bill 7 as essential. That much is clear from the urgency. The view inside State House seems to be that the country cannot continue operating with loose edges in its constitutional structure, especially heading into an election. HH prefers systems that move without friction. But systems lose their authority when those affected by them feel excluded.

Whether the Oasis Forum marches or chooses the negotiation table, the fundamental issue does not disappear. Zambians want to know why the process advanced quietly for so long and why dialogue became desirable only when pressure increased. A constitutional amendment cannot rely on timing that appears convenient to one side.

What this moment reveals is simple: trust is the real currency in any constitutional review. Without it, even the most carefully drafted amendment becomes a political flashpoint. Bill 7 is now at the centre of that contest, and the country must watch closely to see whether dialogue becomes a genuine turning point or a brief pause in a process already shaped behind closed doors.