The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has expressed deep alarm regarding the reintroduction of the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 by the Government, through the Minister of Justice, to the Speaker of the National Assembly. This move, and the Speaker's subsequent decision to accept it and appoint a Select Committee, directly contradicts a clear Constitutional Court ruling. The Court had previously declared the process leading to the initial presentation of Bill No. 7 unconstitutional, thereby rendering the Bill a nullity until a proper, people-driven process is undertaken. LAZ emphasizes that while disagreements with judicial decisions may arise, the rule of law mandates full compliance with them, warning that disregard for the Constitutional Court’s directives poses grave risks to Zambia's constitutional democracy.

According to LAZ, leaders tasked with upholding the Constitution must lead by example by respecting and abiding by court decisions. The Constitutional Court, in the case of Celestine Mukandila and Munir Zulu vs Attorney General, specifically ruled that the Government's initiation of a constitutional amendment process, culminating in Bill 7, without undertaking wide consultations with the people, violated the spirit of several articles of the Constitution (as amended by Act No. 2 of 2016). The Court further ordered and directed the Government to ensure a people-driven process led by an independent body of experts to conduct broad consultations. The Court's position was that constitutional amendment initiatives must originate from the people and be supported by a tangible, visible process of broad-based consultations to legitimize any changes. LAZ asserts that defying this declaration constitutes a breach of law and an illegality under Article 1 (1) of the Constitution of Zambia.

In light of this, LAZ calls on the Government and the National Assembly to heed the voices of the Church, traditional authorities, civil society, and other stakeholders, and to immediately withdraw and abandon any further deliberations of Bill No. 7. They stress that all constitutional reforms must be founded on genuine, broad-based stakeholder engagement and consensus on both the substance and process to ensure the legitimacy of the outcome. This stance, issued on December 4, 2025, is in furtherance of LAZ’s mandate to promote Constitutionalism and legal reforms.

Opposition leader Mundubile supports this view, arguing that the Constitutional Court's invalidation of the process meant Bill 7 ceased to exist. He criticizes the Speaker for allowing its re-tabling and notes that a technical committee appointed by President Hakainde Hichilema circulated the same clauses under a different guise, which Mundubile deems an attempt to revive a 'dead' bill rather than genuine consultation. He traces the origins of the crisis to President Hichilema’s public declarations about constitutional amendments without a national dialogue, roadmap, or legal framework. Mundubile stated that Zambians were presented with a document drafted at State House as a finished product.

The controversy intensified after the Oasis Forum, which had organized a prayer rally against Bill 7, accepted an invitation to State House. Many hoped this signaled a willingness to ease national tensions, but the meeting instead highlighted a growing divide between State House and public sentiment. Oasis Forum Chairperson Beauty Katebe later confirmed that no agreement was reached, and fundamental differences remained. Callers on a program expressed frustration, with some stressing that Bill 7 was crucial for national survival and urged Members of Parliament (MPs) to show courage. Concerns were raised that the Bill might pass if it reaches a vote, given the ruling party's near two-thirds threshold, and fears of opposition MPs being compromised led Mundubile to convene an urgent meeting with Patriotic Front lawmakers to caution against betrayal, securing assurances from many against supporting the Bill.

Mundubile also dismissed the President’s complaint that critics oppose him due to his origin, calling it self-pity and reminding viewers that previous leaders, despite receiving fewer votes in certain areas, never accused residents of hatred. He linked the constitutional crisis to Zambia’s deteriorating economic conditions, citing load shedding, unpaid farmers, collapsing businesses, and miners resigning. In his view, the government is pursuing an unnecessary constitutional amendment while citizens struggle economically. Mundubile affirmed the Patriotic Front's strength and internal efforts toward reconciliation and preparation for a convention, pledging to lead the fight against Bill 7 within Parliament and ensure MPs understand its long-term dangers. He urged citizens, churches, and civic groups to remain vigilant, asserting that the Constitution belongs to the people, not any President. His final message declared Bill 7 “legally dead, morally bankrupt and politically corrosive,” stating that Zambia's democratic legitimacy depends on Parliament respecting the people over executive ambitions.

Conversely, proponents like Rev. Dr. Elias Munshya, Zambia’s Ambassador to Angola, advocate for Bill 7 as a means to strengthen Zambia’s governance and ensure full representation for women. He highlights the proportional distribution system proposed by the Bill, which could see parties like UPND gaining 12 seats and PF 8 seats, with others below the threshold for a full seat. Munshya views this as an inclusive system that encourages parties to field strong female leaders, thereby optimizing the “talent pipeline” and strengthening the nation when all voices, especially women’s, are heard.

State House has challenged opposition leaders to identify any clause in Bill 7 that endangers democracy, a move that has prompted specific engagement with the Bill's content. Opposition figures have published detailed open letters with clause-by-clause objections, and MPs have pledged to outline their positions on specific provisions. This shift from vague denunciations to substantive debate is seen by some as progress. The opposition’s critique primarily focuses on what they term an “autocratic architecture,” alleging that provisions concerning by-elections, presidential dissolution powers, and nominated MPs weaken Parliament's oversight of executive power. They also argue that reserved seats for women, youth, and persons with disabilities constitute “elite-managed inclusion,” serving as a pretext for consolidating presidential authority. Questions are also raised about the fiscal logic of abolishing by-elections to save costs while simultaneously adding 55 new MPs.

Interestingly, even critics like Oasis Forum Chairperson Beauty Katebe acknowledge that Bill 7 contains beneficial provisions, though she maintains the constitutional amendment process is flawed. This acknowledgment suggests the debate should distinguish between problematic clauses and sound reforms. Proponents of Bill 7, particularly regarding the mixed-member proportional representation system for marginalized groups, challenge the opposition to propose alternative mechanisms to achieve similar inclusion for comparative assessment. They also ask whether concerns about expanding Parliament from 156 to 211 constituency seats are primarily about cost or the principle of representation for growing populations. State House urges the opposition to provide a comprehensive, constructive critique that specifies which parts of Bill 7 should be preserved, revised, or removed, arguing that critique without alternatives, condemnation without solutions, and opposition without proposals ultimately fail both democracy and the Zambian people. The challenge remains for opposition leaders to present their better vision, allowing competing ideas to be debated with the seriousness required for a Constitution that belongs to all Zambians.