Zambia's political landscape is currently dominated by the contentious Constitution Amendment Bill Number 7, a legislative proposal that has garnered both staunch support and fierce opposition. The debate surrounding this Bill highlights a deep ideological and procedural divide among the nation's political players, with significant implications for future elections, democratic space, and party politics.

The New Nation Party (NNP), under the leadership of Dr. Mumba, has unequivocally expressed its full support for Constitution Amendment Bill Number 7, urging that the legislative process move forward without delay. Speaking at the official opening of the NNP Secretariat in Lusaka, Dr. Mumba underscored the Bill's importance, particularly recalling the arguments made by the party's predecessor, the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD). The MMD had previously warned that a failure to amend Clause 52 could potentially lead to the collapse of an election if a presidential candidate were to withdraw midway through the process. Beyond addressing this critical electoral safeguard, the NNP also views the Bill as a vehicle for fostering inclusivity. Dr. Mumba highlighted the party's commitment to supporting persons with disabilities, women, and young people, advocating for measures to increase their representation in Parliament. Furthermore, he noted that the proposed constituency delimitation process, if implemented, holds the potential to accelerate development across the country. In his address, Dr. Mumba also voiced disappointment over what he described as the opposition's persistent use of hate speech directed at President Hakainde Hichilema, making a fervent call for political actors to prioritize national interest and unity over partisan hostility and mistrust that continues to divide the nation.

Conversely, a significant portion of the opposition, notably the Patriotic Front (PF) and its prominent members, has adopted a strong stance against Bill Number 7. Hon Mundubile, speaking at a press briefing in Lusaka, revealed that most PF lawmakers have resolved to abstain from the legislative process, citing concerns that their participation could expose them to possible contempt charges. This position stems from the PF's assertion that the United Party for National Development (UPND) government has deliberately disregarded a court judgment that declared Bill 7 a nullity. According to Mundubile, proceeding with the Bill in defiance of this judgment constitutes a clear disregard for the rule of law. He further characterized the Bill as politically motivated, designed not to serve the broader national interest but rather to advance the specific interests of the ruling party. Hon Mundubile went on to accuse President Hichilema of attempting to leverage the proposed delimitation of constituencies as a tool to resolve internal party disputes within the UPND, particularly in strongholds where younger members are reportedly vying to dislodge non-working older Members of Parliament. He criticized the President for failing to manage these internal wrangles and instead resorting to constitutional amendments and constituency delimitation as a political maneuver, which he described as undemocratic and a manipulation of the Constitution. Mundubile also warned that the proposed amendments are intended to make it more difficult for independent candidates to contest in next year's general elections, thereby shrinking the democratic space. Echoing these sentiments, Lunte Member of Parliament Hon Mutotwe Kafwaya declared his intention to be absent from the National Assembly at any stage when Bill 7 is considered, stating he does not wish to be associated with what he termed an "illegal" bill. Mr. Kafwaya affirmed he would not vote for Bill 7 and urged the UPND government to produce a comprehensive report justifying the proposed creation of 55 new constituencies.

The intensity of the opposition's stance was further amplified by Mporokoso Member of Parliament Brian Mundubile over the weekend, who reiterated that proceeding with Bill 7 amounts to a direct defiance of the courts, deeming the parliamentary process "illegal and disrespectful to the judiciary." He contended that the government erred by internally drafting the Bill, bypassing what he suggested should have been a fresh, independent, and inclusive constitutional review process. Shiwang’andu MP Stephen Kapyongo supported this view, arguing that public funds were squandered on establishing a Technical Committee whose work, in his opinion, should not have preceded a broader national consensus. Despite these strong declarations, observers note that the opposition's messaging has struggled to articulate a clear, evidence-based explanation of how Bill 7 allegedly enables President Hakainde Hichilema to remain in office indefinitely. This narrative gap has become more apparent as the crucial parliamentary vote approaches.

The legislative challenge to Bill 7 is further complicated by the arithmetic of Parliament. While the UPND holds a dominant position in Southern, Western, and North-Western provinces, and a lead in Lusaka, the PF retains numerical strength in Eastern, Luapula, Northern, and Muchinga provinces. Constitutional amendments necessitate a two-thirds majority, a threshold that demands careful political maneuvering beyond mere online rhetoric. Against this backdrop, PF-aligned platforms have engaged in tactics described as blurring the line between civic engagement and intimidation, circulating lists of 21 PF and independent Members of Parliament, complete with contact numbers, urging citizens to pressure them against supporting the Bill. This has intensified pressure on individual legislators, who are already navigating constituency expectations and party discipline. Adding another layer to the conflict, PF-linked legal actors have initiated at least a third court attempt to halt the Bill on procedural grounds, making litigation as central to the opposition's strategy as parliamentary debate. While the opposition has shifted its focus from a clause-by-clause critique to emphasizing the Bill's alleged procedural illegality, the government and the Parliamentary Select Committee consistently maintain that no court has declared Bill 7 itself unconstitutional, only commenting on aspects of its initiation. The debate has thus decisively shifted from the Bill's content to questions of confidence and legitimacy, pitting arguments of a lawful vote against the need for broader moral consent. As MPs prepare for tomorrow’s second reading, the critical question remains whether the opposition's anger can be effectively converted into votes on the floor of the House, and whether their strategy, in terms of numbers and narrative, is sufficient to stop the Bill where it matters most: within Parliament.