Zambia is currently embroiled in a significant constitutional reform debate, primarily centered on the proposed Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025. This contentious issue has led to a breakdown in dialogue between the government and the civil society coalition, the Oasis Forum, and has raised fundamental questions about legal compliance, democratic principles, and national stability.

According to senior government sources, a group of individuals who were previously involved in controversies surrounding the delayed burial of former President Edgar Chagwa Lungu are now allegedly spearheading an aggressive campaign to mislead the public on Bill No. 7. The government contends that these actors, including Archbishop Alick Banda, Makebi Zulu, Brebner Changala, Celestin Mukandila, Brian Mundubile, Given Lubinda, Fred M’membe, and Mumbi Phiri, are deliberately propagating a false narrative that Zambians have rejected the Bill. Government supporters view this group as repeatedly taking positions that inflame tensions, erode public confidence in state institutions, and hinder government efforts to promote stability, transparency, and accountability.

Officials emphasize that Bill No. 7 is a crucial step towards modernizing Zambia’s governance framework. They argue it aims to strengthen checks and balances, improve coordination among government branches, and address long-standing constitutional gaps, asserting that opposition to the Bill is driven by political expediency rather than merit. Government-aligned observers warn against politicizing sensitive national matters, such as constitutional reform, cautioning that it risks undermining the country’s collective values and democratic progress. As Parliament prepares to deliberate, government representatives urge citizens to be vigilant against misinformation and support reforms designed to strengthen the nation, believing that a "silent majority" supports these changes despite vocal opposition.

Conversely, prominent legal expert John Sangwa, SC, provides a detailed counter-argument, asserting that Bill No. 7 of 2025 legally does not exist. His analysis highlights a meeting on November 28, 2025, where the Oasis Forum urged the President to abandon plans to amend the Constitution before the next general election, emphasizing constitutional stability, meaningful public participation, and adherence to the rule of law. However, the outcome was unsatisfactory, as the President remained determined to proceed, causing widespread confusion.

Sangwa explains that the constitutional uncertainty began on March 8, 2025, when the President unexpectedly announced intentions to amend the Constitution without prior public consultation. Despite the Justice Minister confirming a draft Bill, citizens filed Constitutional Petition No. 2025/CCZ/009 on April 1, 2025, arguing that the Constitution belongs to the people, requiring consultation before amendments, and that due process was not followed. Despite the ongoing petition, the government published Bill No. 7 on May 23, 2025, and it received its first reading in Parliament on June 25, 2025.

A significant turn of events occurred on June 26, 2025, when the President announced a deferment of Bill No. 7 for further consultation. However, on June 27, 2025, the Constitutional Court delivered a landmark judgment, ruling that the entire process leading to Bill No. 7 was unconstitutional, that the government must conduct meaningful public consultation before drafting or introducing such a Bill, and that all actions taken in relation to Bill No. 7 were invalid and void. This ruling effectively extinguished Bill No. 7 in law, rendering the President's deferment irrelevant.

Following the Court’s decision, the President established a Technical Committee on October 20, 2025, with Terms of Reference to guide a new, lawful, and inclusive constitutional review process. This Committee is tasked with studying the Court’s judgment, examining proposed amendments, conducting nationwide public consultations, reviewing past reform processes, and potentially drafting a new Bill only if public views justify it. Sangwa argues that this signaled an acceptance of the original process's unconstitutionality and confirmed that Bill No. 7 could not be revived, thus also undermining the Speaker’s earlier ruling on July 9, 2025, that Parliament could still proceed with the Bill.

The legal expert asserts that until the Technical Committee completes its work and a new Bill is lawfully produced and gazetted for 30 days as required by Article 79, no valid Bill exists, and therefore, there is nothing legitimate to debate. He contends that the only meaningful national discussion at this juncture should be why the Constitution must not be amended at all, especially so close to a general election.

Further, Sangwa emphasizes that the Constitution as amended in 2016 is a bipartisan national settlement, not an ordinary statute to be altered for partisan convenience. It was the culmination of a long reform process involving all major political parties, including the Patriotic Front (PF) and the United Party for National Development (UPND). He argues that if the changes the UPND now seeks were genuinely necessary, they should have been proposed during the 2016 negotiations or in 2019 when the PF introduced Bill No. 10. Reopening the Constitution now, hurriedly and unilaterally, undermines this deliberate and inclusive settlement. He equates the UPND's current attempt with the PF's previous attempt to amend Bill No. 10 before the 2021 election, both being improper and dangerous to constitutional stability.

Sangwa also warns against amending the Constitution months before an election, even if a valid Bill existed. Such amendments, he explains, undermine fairness and neutrality by changing electoral rules, create suspicion and distrust regarding the ruling party's motives, and destabilize institutions at a critical time when stability is paramount. He highlights the absence of any national crisis justifying urgent constitutional change, suggesting that invented urgency is a hallmark of constitutional manipulation. Moreover, he cautions that such actions set a dangerous precedent, where future governments might continually amend the supreme law for partisan gain, leading to the decay of democracy.

The government’s decision to suspend dialogue with the Oasis Forum further illustrates the deepening divisions. Following a high-level meeting between President Hakainde Hichilema and the Forum on November 28, 2025, intended to build confidence, Attorney General Mulilo Kabesha led follow-up talks that were abruptly discontinued. Chief Government Spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa announced the suspension, stating that the Oasis Forum arrived with a