HH Declines To Sign Public Gatherings Bill, Calls It “Against Public Interest”

HH Declines To Sign Public Gatherings Bill, Calls It “Against Public Interest”

President Hakainde Hichilema has refused to assent to the Public Gatherings Bill, describing the legislation as undemocratic and contrary to the public interest, a decision that has surprised legal observers who noted that the bill, in several respects, represented a more progressive framework for civic freedoms than the colonial-era law it was designed to replace.

The bill was among a number of pieces of legislation passed by the National Assembly during the final days of its last sitting. According to Parliamentary sources, President Hichilema returned it on May 29, citing reservations that prevented him from proceeding with his assent.

Introduced by Attorney-General M.D. Kabesha on April 23, 2026, the Public Gatherings Bill was crafted to repeal and replace the Public Order Act of 1955, a piece of colonial-era legislation that has long been a source of controversy for its wide grant of discretionary powers to the police to approve or block public assemblies. Rather than perpetuating a permit-based system, the bill proposed a notification framework, a shift that, in principle, tilted the default away from police discretion and towards the right of citizens to assemble.

Under the proposed law, organisers of any assembly, meeting, procession or demonstration involving three or more people in a public place would have been required to notify an authorised officer at least five days in advance, providing details of location, route, purpose, expected numbers and contact information. The officer would have been obligated to acknowledge the notice within 24 hours and issue a decision within three days. Critically, the bill included a deemed-approval provision: if the officer failed to acknowledge within the stipulated period, the notice would automatically be considered received, and if no formal approval followed, the organiser would be entitled to proceed with the gathering regardless. That clause alone represented a meaningful departure from the architecture of the Public Order Act, under which police inaction effectively amounted to a veto.

The bill further stipulated that police could restrict a gathering only on specified and limited grounds, including a clash with a prior notice, an unsuitable venue, the location falling within a protected area, or a reasonable belief of imminent public disorder or danger. Any restriction would have required written reasons to be issued at least three days in advance, with the organiser afforded an opportunity to address the concern. Where remedial measures were taken, the restriction would have been required to be lifted, and where the original date had already passed, an alternative date would have to be agreed.

The legislation also contained provisions of particular relevance to the political and electoral landscape. While a broad range of exemptions were provided, covering the President, Members of Parliament in their constituencies, funerals, weddings, traditional ceremonies, indoor party meetings and worship services, those exemptions for ministers, Members of Parliament, mayors and councillors were explicitly removed during election campaigns, active elections and periods following the dissolution of Parliament. That provision would have placed incumbents and opposition figures on equal footing during the most contested periods of the democratic cycle. Additionally, the bill granted the media an explicit right to monitor public gatherings, a right that all parties would have been legally bound to uphold.

Despite these provisions, the bill drew sharp and widespread criticism from civil society, legal commentators and the general public, who expressed alarm at the breadth of the definition of a public gathering and the continued role of the police in the notification process. Critics argued that even a notification-based system risked being applied in a manner that would chill the exercise of civil liberties, and that the penalties for holding an unauthorised gathering, while modest, introduced a criminal dimension that could be selectively enforced. Many went further, describing the bill as more dangerous than the very legislation it sought to repeal.

By declining to sign the bill, President Hichilema has aligned himself publicly with those concerns, characterising the legislation as incompatible with democratic values and the public interest. His decision effectively returns the bill to Parliament, where legislators will be required to reconsider its provisions.

For now, the Public Order Act of 1955, the colonial framework that the bill was intended to finally consign to history, remains the law of the land.