Zambia possesses a rich legacy of peaceful civic engagement, marked by significant events such as the Oasis Forum's march during the Chiluba third term saga and citizen protests against Bill 10 under President Edgar Lungu. Throughout various periods of national tension, students, churches, and trade unions have consistently exercised their constitutional right to protest, underscoring that such action is not a crime but a fundamental liberty.

Currently, the nation is grappling with a constitutional amendment process, specifically concerning Bill 7. This process initially garnered thousands of submissions from a wide array of stakeholders, including citizens, civil society organizations, traditional leaders, and various institutions. A technical committee diligently toured all provinces, conducting meetings in provincial centers, entering chiefdoms, and engaging with churches and local organizations to solicit public input. The principle of democracy was upheld, allowing both participation and refusal to participate.

However, a critical debate has emerged, with some faith leaders and activists demanding the withdrawal of Bill 7, citing their choice not to participate in the submission process. This argument is deemed hollow, as the window for submissions has closed and the technical committee has completed its work. The appropriate next steps, it is argued, are to publish the submissions, table the bill in Parliament, and allow elected representatives to vote, thereby preventing a precedent where boycotting a process grants the power to annul it.

Amidst this, Home Affairs Minister Jack Mwiimbu's warnings against protests, suggesting they would divide the nation, have been criticized for painting the government as defensive and insecure. Conversely, President Hakainde Hichilema's invitation for dialogue with protest organizers is seen as the correct approach, emphasizing that trust is built through transparency, not threats or moral lectures. The administration is urged to publish the technical committee's report and present the bill transparently to Parliament, fostering open debate.

Critics of Bill 7 are also challenged to substantiate their claims that the amendments favor President Hichilema, would delay elections, or extend his term. These warnings, which have circulated for months, lack specific clauses or legal paths to support them, prompting calls for serious arguments over fear-mongering. The government also shares blame for weak communication and an incredible timeline regarding Bill 7, which eroded public confidence. Rectifying this requires publishing the submissions and clarifying how they were handled, as silence has bred suspicion that only openness can cure.

In response to the ongoing concerns, the Patriots for Economic Progress (PeP) has accepted an invitation from the Oasis Forum Chairperson, Beauty Katebe, to join a peaceful street protest scheduled for Friday, November 29, 2025, from the Freedom Statue to State House. PeP President Sean Tembo confirmed their participation, stating it is to protest the irregular and unlawful manner in which President Hichilema’s government is attempting to amend the Constitution using Bill 7. This decision, Tembo noted, was made despite Bill 7 having recently been declared unlawful and unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court.

PeP's acceptance underscores their belief in exercising constitutional rights, such as peaceful assembly and protest, within the confines of the law. Tembo highlighted that the Oasis Forum complied with the Public Order Act by notifying the police, despite reports that the Lusaka Division Police Command refused to receive the notice. PeP maintains that the delivery of the notice suffices to satisfy legal requirements. While acknowledging President Hichilema’s call for dialogue with the Oasis Forum, PeP insists that any such dialogue should occur only after the planned peaceful protest proceeds without fail.

The path forward for Zambia demands that the march be allowed, dialogue hosted, submissions published, Bill 7 tabled in Parliament, and MPs allowed to debate. The nation must avoid a culture where any group refusing to engage gains a national veto, as this would undermine reform, paralyze governance, and transform future amendments into street contests. The Constitution belongs to all citizens, transcending the interests of any single church, forum, faction, or administration.