Zambia, a nation that proudly declares itself a Christian nation, finds its Church at the center of a profound national debate surrounding proposed constitutional amendments. In moments of intense public scrutiny, particularly on matters as sensitive as constitutional changes, institutions like the Church often face questions regarding their role and influence. The overarching question many Zambians are quietly asking today is: To what extent is the Church in Zambia partially political?

The Church, despite its sacred mission, is fundamentally a human institution, run by individuals who are social, economic, and political actors. Bishops, pastors, and clergy operate within a world shaped by power dynamics, state decisions, and societal pressures, making it nearly impossible for the Church to exist entirely outside the political sphere. While it is not inherently wrong for the Church to comment on governance—given that morality itself has political consequences—challenges arise when clergy appear to align with specific political actors, when church groupings are accused of indirectly influencing public decisions, or when internal church politics shape national-level advocacy.

Historically, the Church in Zambia has played a significant political role, often positively. Examples include its interventions during the 1990–1991 political transition, its mediation efforts during election tensions, and its consistent advocacy on matters of governance, corruption, and human rights. These interventions have often served as a moral compass, helping to steer the country away from conflict and promoting accountability, without positioning the Church as a political contestant.

The current constitutional amendment debate, specifically Bill No. 7 of 2025, has once again placed the Church under the microscope. With protests planned, segments of society allege that the Church is either influencing or actively supporting certain positions regarding the proposed changes. This perception stems from several factors: politicians sometimes utilize the Church to legitimize their agendas, church leaders frequently issue statements that are politically interpreted, and church mother bodies are expected to take moral stances, which some perceive as political interference. The Catholic Church, a historically crucial moral voice in Zambian governance debates, has notably expressed concerns that specific provisions within Bill No. 7 may erode accountability or limit citizen oversight, a position consistent with its past advocacy during the 2016 Bill of Rights referendum and earlier constitutional reform attempts.

The strength of the Church primarily lies in its moral legitimacy, not political alignment. When the Church is perceived as leaning towards or against the government on constitutional issues, its moral authority risks being weakened. To maintain its role as a trusted mediator, the Church’s statements must be consistent, principled, and non-partisan. It must clearly separate its prophetic voice from political participation and avoid being used as a weapon by either ruling or opposition actors, lest it inadvertently divide the nation it seeks to unite. Citizens, too, have a responsibility to avoid weaponizing the Church solely to suit their political preferences, recognizing that the Church’s core mission is to uphold moral clarity rather than to please political factions.

The controversy surrounding Bill No. 7 of 2025 is multifaceted. Critics argue that certain provisions may alter the balance of power, adjust governance structures, or redefine constitutional protections, potentially weakening democratic safeguards or opening the door to political manipulation. Dr. Fred M’membe and other political leaders advocate for extensive dialogue, consensus-building, and broad public participation, fearing that a rushed process could yield a document shaped more by political convenience than national interest. The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), through its President Lungisani Lungu, has added a legal dimension to the pushback, supporting calls for peaceful protest and emphasizing that constitutional reforms must be insulated from partisan interests, a stance that holds significant influence over public confidence.

In response, President Hakainde Hichilema has warned against actions that could destroy the country's progress, emphasizing that while divergent views are normal, lawlessness and inciting unrest are not justified. He urged Zambians to embrace dialogue, stating, “We will not allow the gains we have made as a nation to be lost through acts of violence and disorder. Let’s come to the dialogue table and resolve issues in a peaceful and constructive manner.” The President also expressed concern over a rising level of hatred, condemning remarks by some church leaders that suggested rigging the 2021 election would have been preferable to his rule, describing such statements as “un-Christian” and “divisive.” He firmly stated that his administration would not allow a return to political violence, as witnessed under the previous Patriotic Front (PF) regime, and warned against individuals hiding behind religion, ethnicity, or political identity to promote division.

The President’s administration views certain clerical interventions as potentially linked to political networks aiming to trigger a legitimacy crisis around Bill No. 7 ahead of the 2026 election cycle. He has challenged the notion that constitutional reform cannot occur during an election period, citing historical precedents. Government officials maintain that the Technical Committee responsible for the amendments consulted citizens from all provinces and argue that protests are an unnecessary escalation, advising dissenters to “Go to court or come to State House instead of toyi toyi.”

Amidst this escalating tension, the Oasis Forum—comprising LAZ, NGOCC, the three church mother bodies, and the LCK Freedom Foundation—has been spearheading protests against the manner in which the constitutional amendment process is being handled. Ms. Katebe, associated with the Forum, disclosed receiving threatening messages shortly before launching a campaign at Copperbelt University, highlighting the digital harassment women activists face. However, the Oasis Forum recently suffered a legal setback when the Constitutional Court refused to grant a conservatory order to halt the amendment process. Judge Maria Mapani-Kawimbe ruled that the Forum had not met the legal threshold for interim relief, failing to demonstrate irreparable harm and noting that public interest favored allowing the Committee to continue its work. Despite this, the Forum's main petition, filed on November 17, 2025, challenging the constitutionality of the Technical Committee, will still proceed.

The Oasis Forum had also confirmed engaging State House for dialogue after suspending its planned “Black Friday” mobilization. This, coupled with the court's dismissal of their application, was interpreted by government officials as vindication, while critics viewed it as a coordinated strategy to deflate momentum. The central tension, however, remains unresolved. Whether dialogue will soften the fault lines or if Zambia will move deeper into a constitutional showdown involving the Church, the courts, the streets, and State House, remains to be seen. The honest answer to whether the Church in Zambia is partially political is yes, to some extent. The critical question is whether its political engagement promotes justice, peace, and national unity, or fuels division. As protests are organized and debates intensify, all stakeholders must act responsibly to ensure democracy is strengthened, national unity preserved, and a Constitution that truly reflects the will of the people is shaped.