Zambia is currently experiencing a period of profound political polarization, marked by hardening rhetoric and fundamental questions regarding its constitutional path forward. At the heart of this national debate is Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025, which has ignited widespread controversy and led to accusations of a constitutional crisis. Various civil society organizations, political figures, and legal bodies have weighed in, highlighting significant concerns about the Bill's legality, its potential impact on democratic principles, and the procedural integrity of its reintroduction.

The intensity of the debate was underscored by Oasis Forum Chairperson Beauty Katebe, who, in unusually blunt and political remarks, urged opposition presidents to resolve their leadership confusion before the 2026 election cycle is lost. She cautioned against vote splitting, stating, "For as long as you all remain presidents and appear on that ballot paper, I can assure you, votes will be split." Her comments drew immediate political interpretation, with State House Political Advisor Levy Ngoma characterizing them as "broadly political," consistent with the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND)'s narrative that the Oasis Forum is no longer a neutral actor. Concurrently, Chief Government Spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa sharply responded to PF presidential hopeful Chishimba Kambwili's warning to MPs voting for Bill 7, dismissing it as reckless and affirming that "Legislative processes fall within the law. They cannot be criminalised."

A critical intervention came from the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), which issued a forceful statement warning of a possible constitutional crisis. LAZ President Lungisani Zulu explicitly demanded that both the Government and the National Assembly "immediately withdraw" Bill 7, arguing that its reintroduction violates a standing Constitutional Court ruling. Zulu emphasized the gravity of disregarding the Constitutional Court’s directives, stating it "poses grave risks to our constitutional democracy" and erodes public trust. This legal challenge placed renewed pressure on Parliament, which had resumed consideration of the Bill.

Further complicating the atmosphere, PF Acting President Given Lubinda resurrected the history of Bill 10, challenging the UPND's consistency. He argued that the UPND, which previously rejected Bill 10 over inadequate consultation, cannot now defend Bill 7, whose process he described as "highly shambolic." Other opposition leaders echoed warnings that the passage of Bill 7 would necessitate future governments to "undo" the amendments, signaling a prolonged political struggle.

On the legal front, the litigation escalated with Munir Zulu and Celestine Mukandila filing a sweeping petition in the Constitutional Court, seeking to summon the Speaker, her deputies, the Clerk, and all MPs for alleged contempt related to the Bill’s reintroduction. This marks one of the broadest legal challenges to Parliament in recent memory. State House, observing the momentum, challenged the consortium of opposition leaders to submit clause-by-clause objections by Sunday, December 7, emphasizing a deliberate rhetorical contrast between President Hichilema’s targeted objections to Bill 10 and what it portrayed as vague political theatre from the current opposition.

Citizens First, responding to State House's challenge to identify clauses in Bill 7 that threaten democracy, provided a comprehensive and factual analysis, highlighting five key areas of concern. Firstly, they cited the "Undemocratic Introduction of Proportional Representation," where 43 new seats (20 for women, 20 for youth, 3 for persons with disabilities) would be selected by political parties based on post-election seat allocation, rather than direct election. This mechanism, Citizens First argues, undermines universal suffrage, direct representation, and election credibility, transferring power from voters to party elites and fostering corruption and ruling party domination.

Secondly, Citizens First objected to the "Abolition of By-Elections," which would remove by-elections entirely, replacing them with party headquarters simply selecting a replacement when an MP’s seat becomes vacant. This, they assert, denies citizens the right to choose their MP, encourages party intimidation, and locks seats into party ownership, shielding the ruling party from accountability and eliminating the historical possibility of Zambians changing parties during by-elections.

Thirdly, the organization highlighted "Excessive Unelected Representation and Executive Control," noting that Bill 7 proposes to raise the number of unelected MPs from 8 to 53, including 10 Presidential nominees. This massive increase, they contended, weakens the electorate’s authority, inflates executive leverage in Parliament, and creates a Parliament more answerable to State House and party leadership than to citizens.

Fourthly, Citizens First raised concerns about "Expanded Presidential Powers and ECZ Risks," arguing that Bill 7 increases Executive influence over independent commissions like the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) and extends the President’s power to dissolve Parliament on vague grounds. This, they stated, violates the spirit of separation of powers, checks and balances, and the supremacy of the Constitution, describing it as "Bill 10 all over again, only repackaged."

Finally, Citizens First pointed out that "Constitutional Safeguards Ignored," with important democratic protections such as the Bill of Rights, campaign finance transparency, and safety for women in politics conspicuously missing. Instead, the Bill introduces repeated "as prescribed" clauses, allowing critical rules to be changed at will without a Constitutional amendment, thereby transferring constitutional power from Parliament to regulation and from the nation to whoever holds power. Citizens First concluded that Bill 7, in its current form, dilutes direct representation, centralizes power, weakens Parliament, undermines independent oversight bodies, and threatens voter sovereignty, demanding the removal of unelected proportional representation seats, retention of by-elections, protection of ECZ and Parliament independence, and rights-driven reforms.

Adding another layer to the constitutional crisis, Rev. Dr. Kelvin Mugala, an Advocate for Good Governance & Constitutionalism, issued a strong statement on December 5, 2025, declaring the UPND Government's defiance of the Constitutional Court in reintroducing Bill 7 as unprecedented. He asserted that the deliberate decision by the Minister of Justice to revive a bill already declared a nullity, coupled with the Speaker’s acceptance, amounts to systemic violations of the Constitution, specifically Article 1(1). Rev. Dr. Mugala echoed LAZ, the Church, civil society, traditional leaders, and legal practitioners in confirming Bill 7's illegality and unconstitutionality, and called for constitutional accountability, including impeachment and removal processes against all officers who have acted outside the law.

Rev. Dr. Mugala detailed specific grounds for accountability. Under Article 108, he argued for "PRESIDENTIAL LIABILITY," stating that the President becomes legally and personally liable where multiple public officers violate the Constitution simultaneously and the President either directs, permits, or fails to stop these violations. The illegal reintroduction of Bill 7, in direct defiance of a ConCourt ruling, he contended, satisfies grounds for impeachment based on violation of the Constitution, gross misconduct, abuse of authority, contempt of Court, and allowing or directing unconstitutional processes.

For the "SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY," Rev. Dr. Mugala stated that by accepting an illegal request and facilitating a nullified bill, the Speaker has violated the Constitution, acted contrary to the ConCourt judgment, and breached national trust. He called upon MPs to consider initiating a motion for the Speaker’s removal under Article 82. Regarding the "MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL," he asserted that their actions in reviving an illegal bill and enabling this illegality constitute abuse of authority, misconduct, violation of Article 1(1), and contempt of Court, warranting immediate removal, disciplinary action, and possible prosecution.

Emphasizing that "NO PUBLIC OFFICER IS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION," Rev. Dr. Mugala stressed that the collective violation through the Bill 7 process is a legal breach demanding firm constitutional remedies. His national call to action included urging Parliament to initiate removal/impeachment proceedings, opposition MPs and Independents to defend the Constitution, civil society to amplify calls for accountability, and the Government to immediately withdraw Bill 7, warning that failure to comply would make impeachment the only lawful remedy. He concluded that Zambia must prevent a precedent where leaders defy the Constitution, ignore the judiciary, and manipulate constitutional processes, reiterating that "No office is above the Constitution. No leader is above the law."

Amidst this fervent debate, Hon. Sunday Chanda, MP for Kanchibiya Constituency, provided clarity on the parliamentary procedure for Bill 7. He explained that a deferred Bill is reintroduced in its previous form and proceeds to the next stage, which for Bill 7, is scrutiny by a Select Committee. This committee is mandated to receive submissions, examine the Bill clause by clause, and prepare recommendations for the House.

Hon. Chanda highlighted why the public should care about both the Bill before scrutiny and the Select Committee Report. The Bill, as originally presented, serves as the official baseline of proposed constitutional amendments, reflecting Government’s initial proposals, revealing changes to the Constitution, and setting the tone for national debate. Public scrutiny at this stage enhances transparency and accountability. The Select Committee Report is equally crucial as it summarizes public submissions, highlights stakeholder concerns, recommends amendments, and directly shapes how Members of Parliament will vote, often leading to substantive changes.

He outlined the expected steps before Bill 7 is put to a vote: First, the Completion of Public Hearings by the Select Committee, where the committee continues to receive submissions from various entities, including institutions, experts, civil society, citizens, and the Technical Committee on the Constitution. This is the current stage. Second, Committee Deliberations and Report Writing, where the committee analyzes submissions, reviews the Bill clause by clause, agrees on recommendations, and prepares its formal Report. Third, Tabling of the Committee Report before the Full House, which informs MPs of the committee’s findings and recommended changes. Fourth, the Second Reading (Debate on Principles), where MPs discuss the Bill’s merits and policy implications, followed by a vote requiring a two-thirds majority for constitutional amendment. Fifth, the Committee of the Whole House (Clause-by-Clause Consideration), where, if the Bill passes the Second Reading, each clause is examined in detail, and textual amendments are made. Sixth, the Third Reading (Final Vote), a brief procedural debate followed by a final vote, again requiring a two-thirds majority. Finally, Presidential Assent, where the Bill is submitted to the President, and upon assent, the amendments become part of the Constitution of Zambia.

Ultimately, the arithmetic inside the House remains the decisive battlefield. With the UPND holding ninety-seven MPs, not including allied independents and small-party MPs, visible fractures within the PF Lubinda bloc continue to mount, with some of its MPs expected to cross the aisle for the final vote. This internal tension within the PF base has led to sharp attacks on social media, where supporters have begun naming members of the Select Committee as potential "sellouts." As Friday evening closes, Zambia stands at a junction where law, politics, procedure, and public perception are colliding. Bill 7 has transcended being merely a legislative item; it has become a critical test of political organization within the opposition, a test of institutional coherence for civil society, and a test of constitutional stewardship for the Government. The coming days are poised to determine whether this intense debate sharpens into confrontation or matures into structured negotiation, with a clear shift in the national mood.