The Church, Citizens, and Bill 7: A Turning Point in Hichilema’s Presidency?

By Kapya Kaoma

From stalled dialogue to national backlash, the president’s missteps on Bill 7 are fast becoming the opposition’s most powerful campaign message heading into 2026. Church bodies, activists, and ordinary voters are now speaking with one voice — and it’s not the one State House wants to hear. And rightly so. President Hakainde Hichilema is a leader on the defensive. The writing is on the wall–Bill 7 may be digging the grave for his presidency, and he knows it. Whether out of pride or political arrogance, he has chosen a fight that has mobilized and unified an opposition determined to see him out of State House.

All three church mother bodies have rejected his constitutional review. The planned demonstration at State House — stopped at the last minute — was not the victory he claimed. It was a lifeline, an invitation to dialogue. Instead, by suspending talks with the Oasis Forum, the government has only hardened public resolve. Hichilema wants a fight; the public may now give him one.

Despite his bravado, the president is uneasy. He knows his political survival is at risk unless he manipulates the system — but will Zambians allow it? He needs Bill 7. In addition to rigging, his push to alter constituency boundaries appears aimed at packing Parliament with MPs from his strongholds using dubiously inflated voter registration numbers. The minister of Southern Province recently boasted of nearly half a million new voters this year — figures later discredited by the Electoral Commission of Zambia. That is the logic of Bill 7–starve Eastern, Muchinga, Luapula, Lusaka, and the Copperbelt of new constituencies while rewarding areas assumed to favor him. In simple terms, rig the field.

Hichilema knows the public has already judged him. His claim that opposition to the Bill is driven by tribalism insults the electorate. Was he not the one who boasted of broad national support? Injecting tribalism into this debate is not only cynical — it’s politically clumsy. Zambians are rejecting what they see as mingalato.

Some argue the president will win this fight. I disagree. Young voters may not know the political battles of the past, but constitutional manipulation has been resisted before — and Hichilema himself once marched in those protests.

His sudden appeal to tribal sympathy reveals historical fear: no president has clashed with all three church mother bodies and survived politically. When these institutions take a stand, history shows the public eventually prevails.

This confrontation may become the spark that energizes the opposition heading into 2026. Many voters will approach that election with Bill 7 in mind, driven by a sense of betrayal. What began as a constitutional quarrel may become the opening battle cry of an anti-Hichilema campaign.

Those claiming the opposition is disorganized miss the point. When citizens are angry, they unify — if not around a party, then around a shared goal: removing a leader they believe has crossed a line. Political science is unequivocal — outrage is one of the strongest motivators of voter turnout.

This is why the president’s strategy is baffling. By forcing constitutional amendments against widespread public resistance, he is cornering himself. Even if Bill 7 passes, he will face a surge of outrage that could drive voters to the polls with one mission: remove him. The Church and opposition will cast themselves as defenders of democracy against a president tightening his grip on power.

If the Bill fails, the public will celebrate — and critics will argue that the collapse of his mingalato proves he cannot be trusted with another term. Either way, he emerges weakened.

It is astonishing that Hichilema cited Kenneth Kaunda’s 1991 reforms to justify his actions. Kaunda did not amend the Constitution in an election year; he responded to public pressure to restore multiparty democracy and even cut his own term short to call early elections — and still, he was voted out. Hichilema also invoked Frederick Chiluba’s 1996 amendments that barred Kaunda from contesting. Yes, Chiluba manipulated the Constitution — just as Hichilema now seeks to do — but Zambians learned from it. When he pushed for a third term in 2001, citizens took to the streets and stopped him. In short, Zambia’s political history offers one clear lesson: constitutional overreach always backfires.

Whichever way Bill 7 goes, Hichilema will not escape the political cost. Zambians know when to say no. The public mood is unmistakable — even if those on the technical committee, eager for allowances, pretend otherwise. Cadres are not the only voters Hichilema needs to get 50+1 — unless he plans to change that requirement too. One can only hope someone has the courage to tell him the truth.