President Hakainde Hichilema’s decision to appoint a Technical Committee tasked with overseeing constitutional amendments in Zambia has sparked a complex array of reactions, ranging from cautious optimism to outright condemnation. While the move is consistent with a Constitutional Court judgment directing the government to restart the process inclusively, many stakeholders have expressed profound concerns about its timing and potential implications.

Governance activist Laura Miti welcomed the President’s decision, viewing it as a definitive step to put the controversial Bill 7 to rest. She lauded the establishment of the Technical Committee as commendable, underscoring the critical role its Terms of Reference (ToRs) will play in ensuring the credibility and legitimacy of the process. Ms. Miti articulated her hope that the ToRs would insulate the process from executive influence and truly reflect the will of Zambians. She emphasized the national need for a composite Constitution—one that is not fragmented by successive amendments, but rather protects and advances democracy, establishes a respected constitutional order, and prioritizes the citizenry. Her ultimate aspiration is for Zambia to achieve a profound, yet simple, people-driven Constitution, so deeply respected that no future government would dare to tamper with it.

However, a growing chorus of dissenting voices, including Reverend Dr. Kelvin Mugala, has questioned the credibility and timing of the constitutional push, especially with the 2026 general elections less than a year away. Rev. Dr. Mugala starkly described the Technical Committee’s appointment as “dangerous, reckless, and politically motivated,” warning that any amendments enacted in the current political climate would erode public trust and destabilize the nation. He accused the ruling UPND government of potentially manipulating the law for political survival, asserting that the existing environment of mistrust and division, characterized by the sidelining of opposition, civil society, and traditional leaders, is unsuitable for such a sensitive national undertaking. Rev. Dr. Mugala further cautioned Members of Parliament against rubber-stamping the proposed amendments and dismissed the reforms as a political distraction designed to derail the opposition and shift focus from government accountability. He urged Zambians across all sectors to unite in rejecting the proposed changes, advocating for any meaningful constitutional review to occur only after 2026, through broad consensus.

Echoing these sentiments, Citizens First, through its President Harry Kalaba, acknowledged the initial welcome of the technical committee but urged caution. Kalaba stressed that the Constitution, as the supreme law, should not be reduced to a mere political showpiece to satisfy minimum compliance with court rulings. Concerns were raised about the committee’s composition, described by many as a “committee of praise singers” numerically dominated by ruling party sympathizers, which could potentially repackage previously unconstitutional proposals under the guise of legitimacy. Citizens First drew a stark comparison to the Annel Silungwe-led Technical Committee of 2011, which spent 18 to 24 months on thorough consultations, contrasting this with the current committee’s rushed timeline ahead of the 2026 elections. The organization demanded ample time and independence for the committee, advocating for a process guided by inclusivity, patience, and transparency to deliver a document reflecting all Zambian aspirations, rather than political convenience.

Golden Party of Zambia (GPZ) President Jackson Silavwe also urged the UPND government to suspend the planned amendments, deeming the process ill-timed. He pointed out that Zambians are more preoccupied with pressing issues like the high cost of living, business challenges, and persistent load shedding. Silavwe, while welcoming the committee in principle, labeled it “a good idea at the wrong time,” suggesting that such a process should have commenced in 2023. He questioned the committee’s timeline, noting its overlap with the 90-day campaign period for 2026, and proposed deferring reforms until after the elections, possibly in 2027, to allow for extensive consultation. Furthermore, he highlighted the absence of clear terms of reference or a timeline from State House.

In a similar vein, Democratic Union (DU) President Ackim Antony Njobvu expressed strong suspicion regarding the government’s “appetite” to reintroduce the widely rejected Bill 7. He contended that the insistence on bringing back the controversial legislation is aimed at extending the ruling party’s stay in power rather than serving any beneficial motive. Njobvu called for government to halt the process and conduct broad consultations with citizens, emphasizing the need to respect the Constitutional Court’s ruling. He urged President Hichilema and his cabinet to prioritize national development and improving citizens’ lives over electoral victories, and called on Zambians to reject any proposed Bill lacking their input. Parliament is anticipated to re-table the Bill amidst ongoing stakeholder concerns, including those from the Catholic Church, regarding its lack of consultative development.