By Chali Mulenga
As the debate around Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 intensifies, one thing has become unmistakably clear:
Zambia is facing not merely a legislative dispute but a constitutional crisis rooted in mistrust, opacity and political overreach.
Bill 7 has been marketed as a sweeping modernisation of our governance system is promising improved representation, inclusivity and electoral clarity.
Yet, beneath the surface, the Bill reveals deep gaps that threaten both constitutionalism and democratic stability.
A Flawed Process From the Start
No constitutional amendment can stand on a broken foundation. The Constitutional Court’s declaration that Bill 7 is a nullity should have halted the process entirely.
Instead, the Bill is being revived and repackaged, ignoring the Court’s directive that wide public consultation is mandatory are not optional.
The opacity surrounding the so-called “Technical Committee,” whose reports remain unpublished, only worsens public suspicion. Constitutional reform demands transparency; secrecy is a red flag.
For a country that has long struggled with mistrust in public institutions, pushing ahead in defiance of judicial guidance undermines the rule of law at its core.
Power Concentration Masquerading as Representation
Supporters of Bill 7 tout expanded constituencies, proportional representation, and reserved seats as victories for inclusion.
On paper, these appear progressive. But the devil lies in the design. By increasing nominated seats and allowing political parties to fill vacancies without by-elections, the Bill shifts control away from voters and towards party elites.
Instead of empowering citizens, the proposed structure risks entrenching the ruling party’s influence, weakening checks and balances, and centralising power under the executive.
A parliament enlarged but politically weakened serves no one except the powerful.
No Roadmap, No Models, No Trust
Electoral reforms must be technically clear and publicly scrutinised. Bill 7 offers neither.
The lack of a published delimitation report, unclear formulas for proportional representation, and unexplained criteria for reserved seats all signal that citizens are being asked to trust a process that refuses to trust them back.
If the goal was truly inclusivity, the framers of Bill 7 would have engaged the voters most impacted such as youth, women, and persons with disabilities.
Instead, decisions are happening behind closed doors, and the public is presented with outcomes rather than participation.
Missed Opportunities in a Critical Moment
Zambia desperately needs comprehensive constitutional reform. We need stronger protections for economic and social rights, reinforcement of judicial independence, stronger local governments, and guardrails against executive overreach.
Yet Bill 7 focuses almost exclusively on redistributing political seats is essentially rearranging the political furniture while leaving the structural cracks untouched.
The result is a reform without a soul. It claims to modernise, but it does not democratise.
Timing That Raises More Questions Than Answers
Introducing major constitutional changes less than a year before the 2026 general elections is not a coincidence, it is a strategy.
Rushed reforms close to an election cycle tend to benefit those already in power.
And without a clear implementation roadmap, the possibility of manipulation, whether through delimitation, vacancy-filling rules, or representation formulas, cannot be dismissed.
For a nation still healing from electoral tensions, this timing risks sowing further distrust.
What Zambia Needs Now
Zambia needs constitutional reform that strengthens institutions, protects rights, enhances transparency, and builds trust, not reforms that deepen political divides.
Bill 7 could have been a milestone. Instead, it has become a symbol of caution: a reminder that reform without legitimacy is simply political engineering.
If constitutional changes are to stand the test of time, they must be owned by the people, not merely drafted for them.
Author is executive director of Building Bridges for Change Foundation
Comments