Zambia is currently embroiled in intense constitutional turbulence, primarily centered around Bill 7, sparking a profound clash between the government and a formidable coalition of civil society organizations, spearheaded by the Oasis Forum. This escalating confrontation fundamentally concerns who holds the authority to define Zambia's future and interpret the national will regarding constitutional reforms. The dispute highlights deep divisions over democratic principles and the rule of law.

In an effort to reshape the prevailing narrative, Chief Communications Specialist Clayson Hamasaka strategically delivered a statement just after a significant meeting between the President and the Oasis Forum, and a subsequent prayer rally organized by the latter. Hamasaka emphasized that the constitutional review “is not about advancing the interests of government, but about empowering citizens,” aiming to widen participation for women, youth, and persons with disabilities. This move signals the government's intention to reclaim the narrative's center ground by legitimizing a broader spectrum of voices in national reforms, thereby challenging the anti-Bill 7 coalition's assertion that “the people” universally reject the process. The government maintains that while opposition pages and PF-aligned tabloids frequently feature accusations of compromised MPs, the thousands who made submissions to the Technical Committee through public sittings and online platforms rarely receive public recognition. The President's assertion that the Constitution “belongs to the people” serves as a reminder that Parliament, as the institution mandated to reflect national will, holds ultimate authority, rather than ecclesiastical coalitions or partisan prayer blocs. Hamasaka's statement implicitly challenges the Oasis Forum's claim to be the sole custodian of public sentiment, citing historical precedent where constitutional change has always been settled in the House.

Conversely, the Oasis Forum has articulated lucid and constitutionally grounded demands. They have called for the immediate withdrawal of Bill 7, which they highlight has already been declared unlawful by the Constitutional Court. Furthermore, they urged the government to uphold the rule of law, cease procedural manipulations, and prioritize the long-neglected Bill of Rights. The Forum strongly insisted on the right to peaceful assembly, not as a governmental favor, but as a fundamental constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 21(1) of the Zambian Constitution. This principled stance has been met with a less than conciliatory response from the state, with reports of a Catholic bishop being summoned by police and previous harassment of clergy. Archbishop Ignatius Chama of the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops warned of growing “division and anger” jeopardizing national unity and Zambia's spiritual well-being.

President Hakainde Hichilema, who once campaigned as a symbol of democratic renewal, presented a public image of openness and attentiveness during his meeting with Oasis Forum Chairperson Beauty Katebe. However, sources present in the room revealed a dramatic shift in tone once the cameras were off. The President's posture hardened, reportedly directing the Oasis Forum to take their grievances to court if they “felt injured,” or to “go and lobby their MPs” if they wished to halt the bill. This stark contrast between public magnanimity and private intransigence has raised significant alarm over the integrity of the constitutional process. Critics accuse the administration of operating outside the rule of law by directing civil society to courts whose rulings have reportedly been disregarded. The suggestion to lobby MPs is further tainted by serious allegations of inducements, with claims of K3 million offered to some opposition lawmakers to support the bill.

The administration's actions have further intensified scrutiny. Its insistence on pushing Bill 7 through Parliament before the December 17 recess is perceived less as a policy imperative and more as an act of political survival. The President's attempts to frame opposition as tribal hostility, implying church resistance stems from his ethnicity, have been met with widespread skepticism, given his overwhelming electoral victory in 2021. Critics argue this rhetoric is a diversion from procedural violations and public disapproval. The selective application of the law, evidenced by the police-escorted pro-Bill 7 march in Choma contrasting with the criminalization of anti-government assemblies, underscores a troubling pattern. Beauty Katebe pointedly reminded the President of his activist past, questioning what had changed regarding the right to peaceful protest. Adding a somber shadow to this political turbulence is the plight of Tasila Lungu, daughter of the late President Edgar Lungu, who faced prolonged delays in burying her father due to alleged political interference. This situation, culminating in Speaker Nelly Mutti declaring the Chawama seat vacant shortly before a general election, raises serious questions about the politicization of grief and the erosion of parliamentary integrity.

The central question remains: who truly stands for “the people” in Zambia's constitutional democracy? Hamasaka's subtle challenge regarding the thousands who submitted views to the Technical Committee, versus the vocal claims of the Oasis Forum, highlights this conundrum. The debate hinges on whether protesters can delegitimize the entire representative system by claiming MPs are compromised. As dialogue continues, the country enters a new phase where legitimacy, rather than mere volume of protest, will dictate the path forward. The coming days will be a crucial test of whether genuine consensus is achievable in a climate where various groups assert the right to speak for Zambia, and where the administration's consistency, humility, and fidelity to democratic principles are under severe scrutiny. The Oasis Forum's prayer, far from being merely spiritual, serves as a profound constitutional lament and a plea for Zambia to uphold democracy as a rigorous discipline requiring unwavering commitment to truth.