By Venus N Msyani

President Hakainde Hichilema’s push to amend Zambia’s constitution through Bill 7 has become one of the most contentious issues of his presidency. Persistence in resistance against the idea has forced the president to repeat himself; characterization of opposition to the bill as “hatred.”

On June 24, 2025, Hichilema met with civil society organizations at State House to discuss governance reforms. During the meeting, he expressed frustration that his administration was being treated differently from past governments. H pointed to UNIP, MMD, and the Patriotic Front (PF), all of which amended the constitution during their tenure. “Why is my administration being prevented from doing the same?” he asked, describing the resistance as hatred he could “feel.”

The remarks drew immediate backlash. Headlines such as “Mr. President, Criticism Is Not Hatred” captured the public mood, with many accusing Hichilema of dismissing legitimate concerns. Civil society groups argued that constitutional amendments should be approached with caution and broad consensus, not framed as personal attacks against the presidency.

Five months later, on November 25, Hichilema repeated the same sentiments during a live press conference at State House. Switching between English and Bemba, he told reporters: “UPND, this man they don’t like for whatever reason… this level of hatred is shocking, right! You can see that there is venom here, you can even touch it.”

He went on to question again why critics now reject constitutional amendments when previous governments faced little resistance. “We go to amend the constitution using the same law, using the same clauses that were used before. They say no, the timing is wrong. But what about those other timings when it was amended? What was right? Why didn’t you go in the streets?” he asked, his tone mixing frustration with disbelief.

It is hard to tell why President Hichilema has repeated remarks that had previously attracted so much criticism from the general public.

These remarks have only deepened public skepticism. His insistence that opposition stems from hatred and regional bias has been interpreted as divisive. At one point, he suggested that resistance was linked to his birthplace, saying: “I feel punished because I come from a certain region of the country. I didn’t choose where to be born. Neither did you. None of us should serve a sentence for crimes we didn’t commit.”

Civil society organizations, led by the Oasis Forum, have vowed to resist what they see as a rushed process. Plans for street protests have been mentioned, with activists warning that Bill 7 undermines democratic safeguards. Church bodies have also voiced concern, urging the President to adopt a more conciliatory tone and prioritize national unity.

Critics argue that Hichilema’s repeated references to hatred and regionalism is a hunt for sympathy and they maybe be right. Sympathy was among the major factors in the 2021 elections.

The 2017 prolonged detention of Hichilema and the mistreatment that followed after his release, including open remarks by then in power the Patriotic Front (PF) officials that Hakainde Hichilema would never rule Zambia, made a lot of people sympathize with Hichilema and the United Party for National Development (UPND).

Is the president hunting for sympathy? What is clear is that the President’s words have become as much a part of the debate as the bill itself. By framing criticism as hatred, Hichilema risks alienating stakeholders and fueling division at a time when Zambia needs consensus. Whether he can recalibrate his message and build trust will be a decisive factor in the months ahead.

Meanwhile, it appears the UPND has not come up with the right term to describe the opposition to Bill 7. On Friday, December 12, 2025, Minister of Information and Media, Hon. Cormelius Mweetwa, who is also the Chief Government Spokesperson, described it “malice.”

Under pressure, Bill 7 was deferred and now back in parliament. The resistance against it has intensified, with the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) saying it is unconstitutional and demanding its withdrawal. Mweetwa says it is malice. Does it sound better than hatred?

The Oasis Forum Letter and the Moment Parliament Cannot Escape

By Faustina Imanga

The letter addressed to the United Party for National Development Parliamentary Caucus by the Oasis Forum is not an ordinary piece of correspondence. It is a constitutional warning, carefully worded, institutionally grounded, and deliberately directed at the very centre of legislative power. It does not shout. It does not threaten. It appeals to conscience, history, and consequence. That restraint is precisely what makes it unsettling.

At its core, the Oasis Forum letter reminds Members of Parliament of a truth that is easy to forget in moments of political comfort. Parliamentary authority is not derived from party favour. It is derived from the Constitution and from the people. When the two are placed in tension, Parliament is expected to choose the latter. This is a crucial responsibility of the Parliament that cannot be overlooked.

The Forum’s first and most serious concern is structural. Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 is presented not as a neutral technical adjustment but as a proposal that fundamentally alters Zambia’s democratic architecture. Constitutions are designed to outlive governments. Any amendment that centralises power, weakens oversight, or narrows accountability mechanisms does not merely affect the present administration. It reshapes the state itself. That reality makes short term political calculations dangerously insufficient.

The letter draws attention to a recurring historical pattern. Ruling parties often legislate under the assumption that they will remain in power long enough to manage the consequences of their decisions. History repeatedly disproves this assumption. Power changes hands. Laws remain. Instruments designed for convenience today become tools of repression tomorrow. The Oasis Forum urges UPND MPs to imagine Bill 7 not in the hands of their own leadership, but in the hands of a future government less committed to restraint. That thought experiment is not theoretical. Zambia has lived it before.

A second concern raised is legitimacy. The Forum highlights the absence of broad national consensus in the Bill 7 process. Constitutional amendments are not ordinary legislation. They alter the social contract. For that reason, they demand inclusive dialogue, transparency, and public trust. When a constitution is amended over sustained objections from civil society, the Church, legal bodies, and professionals, the resulting law may be valid on paper but hollow in legitimacy.

Legitimacy deficits do not disappear after enactment. They follow laws into the courts, into public discourse, and into future elections. A constitution that large sections of society do not recognise as theirs becomes a source of instability rather than order. The Forum’s warning here is measured but firm. Passing Bill 7 in the current climate risks creating a governance gap that no amount of political messaging can close.

The letter also raises a critical legal issue. It reminds MPs that the Constitutional Court, in the case of Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila versus the Attorney General, found the process leading to Bill 7 unconstitutional. The concern is not academic. Court orders are binding. Legislative action taken in defiance of such orders exposes Parliament and the executive to future legal challenges, possible invalidation of the law, and reputational damage to Zambia’s rule of law credentials.

For lawmakers, this is not an opposition argument. It is a personal one. The Forum makes the point that no MP, whether in government or opposition, benefits from participating in a process that is legally vulnerable. Laws born in procedural defect carry risk not only for the state, but for those who enacted them. The warning is clear without being alarmist.

Perhaps the most politically sensitive section of the letter is its discussion of parliamentary security. Bill 7, the Forum argues, increases the replaceability of Members of Parliament at the discretion of party leadership. In plain terms, it concentrates power upwards while weakening individual mandates. Constituency loyalty, performance, and public trust become secondary to internal party dynamics. In such a system, MPs cease to be representatives of the people and become delegates of party authority.

This argument cuts to the heart of parliamentary identity. MPs are elected by citizens, not appointed by parties. Any amendment that subtly shifts that balance undermines the very essence of representative democracy. The Forum’s message is blunt. Supporting provisions that reduce your own independence is not loyalty. It is political self harm.

The closing appeal of the letter is its most constructive. The Oasis Forum does not merely oppose Bill 7. It offers a path forward. It calls for restraint, for withdrawal of support for the Bill in its current form, and for a structured, inclusive national constitutional review process. This is not obstruction. It is an invitation to govern wisely.

The letter recognises the unique position of the UPND. As a party elected on promises of constitutionalism, institutional respect, and democratic renewal, it carries a heavier burden of consistency. The standards it applies to itself will shape public trust long after individual leaders leave office.

Parliament now stands at a defining moment. It can act as an extension of party machinery, or it can assert its constitutional role as a guardian of the republic. The Oasis Forum letter does not command. It implores. It asks MPs to think beyond the vote count, beyond caucus pressure, and beyond the next election cycle.

History will not record how loudly Parliament defended itself. It will record whether it listened when it mattered.

Below is the letter By Oasis Forum

here is the full wording from the Oasis forum:

OASIS FORUM

Honourable Members of Parliament

United Party for National Development Parliamentary Caucus

Parliament of Zambia

Lusaka

Dear Honourable Members,

RE: WHY THE PASSAGE OF CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT) BILL NO. 7 SHOULD BE OF GRAVE CONCERN TO UPND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

The Oasis Forum, comprising the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB), the Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ), the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ), the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) and the Non-Governmental Gender Organisations’ Coordinating Council (NGOCC) writes to you with deep respect for the democratic mandate you hold and the constitutional responsibility entrusted to you as lawmakers.

As representatives of the ruling party, you face a unique intersection of political accountability, constitutional duty, and legacy considerations. It is for these reasons that we urge you to carefully consider the far-reaching consequences of supporting Bill 7.

1. Bill 7 Poses Significant Risks to Zambia’s Democratic Architecture

Several clauses of the Bill fundamentally alter the balance of power under the Constitution. They risk eroding the delicate system of checks and balances especially by the legislature that protects both the people and future governments – including your own party when it is no longer in office. Laws made today must serve Zambia even when political fortunes shift, and they do always shift, eventually.

2. The Bill Creates Long-Term Political Vulnerabilities for the UPND

Even if certain provisions appear convenient to a sitting government, constitutional design must not be built around present holders of office. A Constitution must anticipate the day when those wielding power are no longer in authority. Supporting changes that centralise executive influence or weaken independent institutions like the legislature can easily be turned against the UPND by future administrations. Once enacted, such structural shifts cannot easily be reversed.

3. The Bill Weakens Public Trust and Contradicts the UPND’s Reform Commitments

Your party was elected on a platform of:

• constitutionalism,

• respect for institutions, and

• rejection of unilateral constitutional amendments.

Bill 7, introduced without broad national consensus or a transparent review process, risks undermining these commitments. This may damage your party’s relationship with civil society, the Church, and ordinary citizens who supported you on the basis of democratic renewal.

As you are aware, the UPND as the ruling party, has a unique duty and obligation to maintain the public trust in the constitutional reform agenda, as the same is essential for sustaining our democracy, prosperity, security and political power.

4. The Constitutional Court’s Orders on the Bill Have Not Been Complied With

The Constitutional Court in the case of Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila vs. The Attorney General declared the process leading to Bill 7 unconstitutional for failing to ensure that the process was people driven and the framing of the amendments came from the people. Government has refused to comply with the specific orders of the court, exposing the country to a serious breakdown of the rule of law. As a law maker, we encourage you to read the Judgment of the Constitutional Court or indeed consult independent legal counsel to inform your position.

Proceeding in breach of express court orders exposes ruling party law makers to possible legal sanctions, especially should power exchange hands, in addition to other risks of fresh constitutional court challenges, legislative invalidation, and unnecessary political instability.

No Member of Parliament – government or opposition – benefits from enacting a law that is vulnerable to future legal attack and exposes those involved in its making to future criminal sanctions.

As a party, the UPND must carefully weigh whether the widespread and deep public disquiet at the constitutional proposition and flagrant violation of the court’s clear orders endears it to the citizens and business community worried about the rule of law consequences for their own businesses faced with unfavourable court outcomes which the Government may simply choose to ignore.

5. Bill 7 Reduces Parliamentary Authority

Seemingly technical amendments in the Bill significantly curtail Parliament’s oversight over:

• appointments,

• public finance controls,

• institutional accountability mechanisms.

As MPs, your constitutional authority should be strengthened, not diminished. Supporting amendments that reduce your powers today weakens your own relevance in future political cycles.

6. Bill 7 Makes you replaceable at the whims and caprices of the Party

The proposed amendments in Bill 7 providing for party replacements of Members of Parliament easily replaceable at the whims and caprices of the Party.

No matter how much faith people you represent in your constituency may repose in your leadership, no matter how much personal effort and resources you put into elected office, even flimsy personal differences with party leadership will expose you to permanent banishment from Parliament.

While the problem may look remote for the party in power, what happens tomorrow when sponsored confusion results in stooges of those in power as leaders of the party. Each of you will be replaced by the party and replaced by those of different political parties out of spite.

Supporting amendments that reduce your security of tenure and places your political future in the hands of one person, whom you cannot guarantee will be fair minded or reasonable is simply political suicide.

The ugliness of Bill 7 is not for your opponents, but you too. As you already know, it is not uncommon for those who make laws thinking they will affect someone else being the first victims of the same law. Take interest.

7. Lack of National Dialogue Creates a Governance Gap

A Constitution is not simply a legal document – it is a social contract. Amending it requires a process that the public recognises as legitimate.

By proceeding with Bill 7 despite widespread civic, religious and professional objections, UPND risks creating a legitimacy deficit that will follow the Bill even if it is passed. This does not serve the nation, and it does not serve the UPND. It is always wise to think of what legacy will be creating by passing Bill 7, and should power ever be lost, whether people will ever trust UPND to give them a credible reformed constitutional order.

8. Oasis Forum’s Request to Honourable UPND MPs

We respectfully urge you to:

1. Internally, critically analyse the threats posed by Bill 7 to the Party and to each of you as an MP.

2. Refrain from supporting Bill 7 in its current form;

3. Call for a structured, inclusive national constitutional review process; and

4. Prioritise reforms that strengthen democracy, unity and institutional stability, rather than politically sensitive adjustments made without adequate consensus.

The future of Zambia’s governance system depends on the decisions Parliament makes today. We implore you to consider not only the immediate political environment, but the long-term integrity of our nation’s constitutional order.

We remain available to provide further technical input, legal analysis, and facilitation of dialogue with your Caucus should this be desired.

Please accept the assurances of our highest consideration. Yours faithfully,

Beauty Katebe Chairperson
For and on behalf of Oasis Forum

CC: UPND Secretary General

2735-01-13/12/2025

God Bless You, Emmanuel Mwamba: A Witness from Exile and a Reckoning for Zambia

By Father Oscar Mwansa Pombo Zambian Catholic priest based in Rome, Italy

I write this reflection not as a politician, not as a partisan voice, but as a Zambian priest living far from home, observing my country with prayer, concern, and honesty. Distance has a way of sharpening memory. It also clarifies conscience. From Rome, I follow Zambia closely, not through rumours or slogans, but through voices that speak consistently, calmly, and with courage. One such voice is that of Ambassador Emmanuel Mwamba.

Ambassador Emmanuel Mwamba’s insights and actions have been pivotal in shaping the dialogue around Zambia’s future.

Let me state clearly. This is not hypocrisy. It is not an attempt to say something pleasant for convenience. It is a public acknowledgment rooted in experience, disagreement, correction, and truth.

In 2021, Emmanuel Mwamba stood alone. That fact matters.The setting was Bakwetu TV, a platform many Zambians remember well. On that day, the panel was heavy with voices. Linda Banks was there. Dr. Kasonzo was there. Dr. Chilufya was there. Patrick was there. Ifewe was there. Awakos Radio was there. Nabambi was there. The room was full. The consensus felt settled. And on the opposite side of all of us stood one man, Emmanuel Mwamba.

He was alone. We were united in our position. He was isolated in his. We were convinced. He was firm. We were certain that Edgar Chagwa Lungu was irredeemably tainted. Mwamba insisted otherwise. He did not claim perfection. He did not deny mistakes. He argued something more uncomfortable. That the man had been painted black beyond truth. That a narrative had overtaken fairness. That judgment had arrived before evidence.

At the time, we did not listen. History has a way of returning conversations we thought were closed. With time, facts surfaced. Legal processes unfolded. Public understanding shifted. What many of us repeated with confidence turned out to be incomplete, exaggerated, or plainly wrong. The man we believed to be beyond redemption was revealed to be human, flawed, accountable, yet not the criminal caricature that dominated public discourse.

That moment forced a reckoning.It forced many of us to admit something difficult. Emmanuel Mwamba had been telling the truth, or at the very least, defending it when it was deeply unpopular to do so. Standing alone is not weakness. Often, it is the earliest sign of courage.

Today, look again at that Bakwetu TV panel. Apart from Ba mukelebai, now based in Europe, most of us have shifted to nuetral position after realising we supported wrong in UPND. Not opportunistically, but conscientiously. We have chosen to stand with the Zambian people, not with fixed camps. That shift did not happen overnight. It came through reflection, regret, and renewed responsibility.

This is why Emmanuel Mwamba’s story matters beyond personal sympathy. After that period, pressure mounted. Attempts were made to silence him. Arrest loomed. The intention was clear to remove a dissenting voice from the public square. Mwamba left Zambia. Exile followed. Exile is not travel. It is loss. It is the loss of home, routine, identity, and dignity. It is the daily effort to prove one respects the law while living away from the very country that should protect that right.

Many in exile disappear into bitterness or silence. Emmanuel Mwamba did not. Instead, he transformed exile into service. From a small room, with limited means, he built a platform that now reaches millions. His podcast, EMV, has become more than commentary. It is a civic forum. It is listened to by ordinary citizens, professionals, clergy, and members of the diaspora across Africa and Europe. I know this because priests, nuns, bishops, and European colleagues speak to me about it.

What draws them is not noise. It is tone.Mwamba speaks with sobriety. He respects the government even when challenging it. He speaks truth without insults. He does not shout. He does not ridicule. In a digital age driven by outrage, that restraint is powerful. It invites listening rather than reaction.

As a priest, I also observe character. Beyond politics, I have discovered in Emmanuel Mwamba something deeper. Humanity. Ubuntu. A concern for those without voice. A sensitivity to suffering that is not selective. These qualities cannot be manufactured. They are revealed under pressure.

I say this openly. If I were to endorse a presidential candidate based on personal conscience alone, Emmanuel Mwamba would be among those I would consider. That statement is not electoral instruction. It is moral assessment. Zambia needs leaders shaped by endurance, humility, and truth, not just ambition.

God’s ways are not rushed. Those who sought to silence him inadvertently expanded his audience. Those who pushed him into exile placed him in a position to speak more freely, more widely, and more responsibly. From that small room, he now speaks to millions. They listen because they recognise sincerity.

I also write this as an admission. I was wrong in 2021. Many of us were. Owning that error is part of national healing. Zambia will not move forward unless public figures learn to say, “We were mistaken.”

From Rome, I continue to pray for Zambia. Our country remains blessed. Our democracy, though strained, still breathes. Every voice still matters, whether spoken from State House, Parliament, or exile.

Emmanuel Mwamba has earned his place in that national conversation.Whether in Zambia or abroad, God is with you. God’s time is exact. Truth, even when delayed, always returns with clarity.

God bless you, Emmanuel Mwamba.