Zambia is currently embroiled in a significant constitutional debate centered on Bill No. 7, sparking a deep divide between the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) government and a coalition of civil society organizations led by the Oasis Forum. This confrontation escalated dramatically on December 1st, 2025, when the Oasis Forum formally withdrew from ongoing dialogue, accusing the government of pressing ahead with an "illegal and flawed" amendment process.

The Oasis Forum, through its Chairperson Beauty Katebe, issued a strong statement outlining its principled stance and reasons for disengagement. The Forum maintains that the current process violates orders from the Constitutional Court, which had previously declared the initiation of Bill No. 7 a nullity due to a lack of mandatory broad public consultations. According to the Forum, proceeding with Bill No. 7 effectively "rubber-stamps" an illegality, rendering any report or ensuing bill from the Technical Committee equally unlawful.

Further concerns raised by the Oasis Forum include the absence of a legal framework to guarantee the Technical Committee's independence, making it susceptible to undue executive influence. They criticized the government-prescribed Terms of Reference (TORs) as restrictive, limiting citizen submissions exclusively to clauses already contained in the nullified Bill No. 7, thereby "resurrecting an illegitimate, election-centred agenda." The Forum also highlighted the government's refusal to formally withdraw Bill No. 7 from Parliament, despite the Constitutional Court's ruling, arguing that this makes dialogue meaningless. They cautioned against tying the reform process to the 2026 general elections, asserting that such a rushed timeline compromises inclusivity and diverts attention from urgent national issues like the cost of living and unemployment. The Oasis Forum has affirmed non-negotiable preconditions for future dialogue: the formal withdrawal of Bill No. 7 from Parliament and the commencement of a fresh, legally supported, inclusive, and holistic constitutional reform process. Warning of potential "anarchy" if the government persists, the Forum pledged to use all available legal avenues and engage the international community, urging Zambians to defend constitutionalism and the rule of law through a nationwide campaign against the Bill.

Conversely, the UPND government, through its Media Director Mark Simuuwe, has staunchly defended Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 7, insisting on its necessity to avert future constitutional crises and strengthen governance systems. Speaking at the Anderson Kambela Mazoka Party Secretariat in Lusaka, Simuuwe asserted that opponents of the Bill had "lost the debate" due to arguments lacking merit and substance. He accused some civil society organizations of attempting to "blackmail" the government, despite being given ample opportunity for constructive engagement, including the deferral of the Bill at their request and the Law Association of Zambia submitting names to the Technical Committee. "The President listened. Government responded," Simuuwe emphasized, countering claims of a closed-door approach.

Simuuwe also criticized certain clergy for engaging in political commentary under the guise of religious leadership, welcoming them to formal politics if they wished. He strongly differentiated Bill No. 7 from the much-criticized Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 10 of 2019, which the UPND opposed while in opposition. While Bill No. 7 proposes only 13 targeted amendments, Bill No. 10 contained 117 amendments and aimed at a near-overhaul of the Constitution, including controversial provisions such as redefining Zambia’s Christian character, reintroducing deputy ministers, abolishing civil service commissions, and weakening oversight on government borrowing. "This is how evil and dangerous Bill 10 was," he stated, urging the public to focus on the progressive clauses of Bill No. 7 rather than political misinterpretations.

Key areas Bill No. 7 seeks to address include the Article 52 issue concerning election nominations, which currently allows unlimited withdrawals and refiling, posing a potential constitutional crisis that could enable incumbents to prolong their stay in office. Additionally, the Bill aims to facilitate delimitation—the constitutional requirement for redrawing constituency boundaries every ten years, a process that began in 2019 and necessitates an amendment to the clause fixing the number of constituencies at 156. Simuuwe clarified that new constituencies do not inherently increase voter numbers or alter presidential outcomes. The Bill also introduces elements of affirmative action to enhance the representation of women, youth, and marginalized groups, aligning with international practices.

Despite the Oasis Forum's rejection, the UPND maintains that the constitution-making process cannot always achieve 100 percent consensus, reiterating that Parliament is the sole body with the constitutional mandate to amend the law. Simuuwe confirmed that the government had already agreed to discontinue "structured dialogue" with the Oasis Forum, stating, "We agree to disagree. Even if Oasis Forum rejects the process, Parliament will proceed."

The constitutional showdown was marked by a "dramatic reset" on December 1st, 2025, when State House livestreamed solidarity submissions from pro-Bill 7 groups, a stark contrast to the closed-door meeting held with the Oasis Forum just days prior. This selective visibility highlighted the government's strategic use of optics to shape the narrative, signaling that the reform would proceed regardless of the Friday coalition's stance.

A broad consortium of eight Civil Society Organizations, led by Solomon Ngoma of AIPAC, presented written solidarity submissions at State House, asserting that claims of insufficient consultation "cannot stand on evidence" given thousands of citizen submissions to the Technical Committee. This group, along with Arthur Muyunda of SACCORD, explicitly pushed back against the perception of Oasis Forum as the sole gatekeeper of public sentiment. Ngoma proclaimed, "In civil society, there is no bigger brother. No organisation is more Zambian than another." This sentiment gained traction among groups historically overshadowed by the Catholic-dominated bloc.

The church dimension also fractured, with several pastors, including Adventist clergy, endorsing the reform process and questioning the idea that the Catholic voice represents the only moral compass, arguing, "No church is more Zambian than another." President Hichilema used the livestream to strike conciliatory tones, emphasizing that the Constitution "belongs to the people" and the goal is to "address long-standing gaps and enhance equity," contrasting dialogue with protest as a path to consensus.

This growing divide within civil society saw the Oasis Forum claiming illegality and rushed timelines, while pro-Bill 7 groups insisted on their consistent participation in provincial consultations and formal submissions, expressing surprise at the Forum's rejection given their representation on the committee. Chief Government Spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa reinforced the government's position, stating the State House meeting "demonstrates that Zambians have agreed on the need to amend the Constitution" and that the President would "continue engaging all stakeholders," widening the circle beyond the Friday bloc.

The strategic timing of the Technical Committee officially handing its report to the President on the same day further underscored the administration's determination to advance the process. The political undertone was unmistakable, with Friday's prayer rally drawing predominantly opposition figures, contrasting with the State House meeting featuring groups branding themselves as grassroots CSOs, creating an impression of broader support for the reform beyond urban elites.

As Zambia awaits Parliament to reconvene, the constitutional showdown is now a contest between two competing legitimacy claims: one rooted in what opponents describe as elite activism, and the other in widening civic visibility mobilized by the government and its supporters. The government remains resolute in its support for Bill No. 7, insisting it is a targeted and progressive amendment vital for a legal system that adapts to prevailing circumstances, and vowing not to allow any attempts to derail a constitutionally mandated process.