12-Party Letter, Oasis Forum & The Battle to Internationalise Bill 7

 MATTERS ARISING | 12-Party Letter, Oasis Forum & The Battle to Internationalise Bill 7

The fight over Bill 7 has moved from courtrooms and church altars to the desks of foreign diplomats. Within forty-eight hours, Oasis Forum announced plans to “possibly engage the international community” over what it calls an “illegal” constitutional process.

Twelve opposition parties have now written a joint rebuke to President Hakainde Hichilema, copied to the United Nations, African Union and SADC, warning that “the nation is boiling” and urging external vigilance.

For a domestic amendment bill, the escalation is striking.

The language of the letter is deliberate and loaded. The presidents of Citizens First, PF, Socialist Party, NAREP, UNIP and others accuse the Head of State of using “reckless” claims about tribal hatred to shield Bill 7 from scrutiny. “It is an attempt to weaponize regional sentiment and sow seeds of tribal mistrust for personal political gain,” they write, insisting that Zambia “does not belong to any tribe or region.”

The charge is a direct response to Hichilema’s own complaint at his press conference that “the level of hatred for me is shocking” and that some critics oppose him because of where he was born.

On Oasis Forum, the opposition leaders choose moral vocabulary, not legalese. They praise the Forum as a “principled defender” of democracy that walked “shoulder to shoulder” with Hichilema against Bill 10.

They now accuse him of “hypocrisy” for allowing allies to ridicule the same body at State House. The letter claims the Monday 1 December livestream became a platform where invited guests used “chaotic, patronizing, divisive and insulting” language against Oasis Forum and Catholic bishops.

It argues that this tone revealed the President’s “mindset” on Bill 7 more clearly than any official statement.

The Church occupies a central part of the text. The letter reminds Hichilema that it was the Catholic Church that “stood by you when you were incarcerated and charged with treason.” It condemns attacks on bishops as “hypocritical, disrespectful, and a betrayal of the moral voice of our nation,” citing recent statements from ZCCB, CCZ and EFZ that call for Bill 7 to be withdrawn and delinked from the 2026 election timetable.

Here the opposition borrows Oasis Forum’s core argument that a rushed, election-timed process cannot pass the test of inclusivity, regardless of how many technical submissions have been counted.

History is used as a warning shot. The authors invoke Kenneth Kaunda’s past remarks that “anyone was better placed to lead this nation except one person” who would divide it, then claim that this prophecy is “fast materialising.” They link Bill 7 to a wider pattern that includes the suspension of Constitutional Court judges and alleged “weaponization” of the Public Order Act.

To external readers, the message is clear. The opposition wants to frame Bill 7 not as a normal amendment cycle but as part of a drift toward “authoritarian tendencies” that deserves early regional and international attention.

Yet the letter is also revealing for who is signing it. Citizens First, PF, Socialist Party, New Heritage, PAC, UNIP, NAREP and several small parties have spent years failing to build a viable electoral alliance. Some have split. Others have competed for the same narrow base. On Bill 7 they have finally found common language.

The letter becomes the clearest joint platform this group has produced since 2021. It positions Oasis Forum as their institutional shield and moral reference point, even though they themselves will ultimately need MPs in Parliament to block the bill if it reaches the floor.

On the other side, government and its allies are building a different story. Chief Government Spokesperson Cornelius Mweetwa says dialogue with Oasis Forum collapsed because it arrived with a “fixed position” and “no alternative proposals.”

UPND media director Mark Simuuwe insists that “those opposed to it have lost the debate,” pointing to over 11,860 submissions to the Technical Committee and arguing that Bill 7 deals with thirteen targeted clauses, not a wholesale rewrite.

Pro-Bill CSOs and church figures who appeared at State House have branded Oasis Forum “urban elitist” and accused some Catholic priests of acting as “political referees” instead of pastors.

Between these two narratives sits Parliament. Both sides know that the Constitution gives only MPs the power to pass or reject Bill 7. The opposition letter calls Hichilema’s approach “a real and immediate threat to national peace, security, unity and social cohesion” but stops short of spelling out a parliamentary strategy.

Oasis Forum has also chosen to focus its fire on process and international pressure rather than on lobbying MPs, even though UPND’s own history on Bill 10 shows that a determined bloc can collapse a government-backed bill inside the chamber without foreign intervention.

For citizens, the competing appeals to “the people” are becoming noise. Government points to thousands of technical submissions and Monday’s solidarity event at State House as proof that many Zambians support reform.

Oasis Forum and the twelve parties argue that their moral and historical record gives them a stronger mandate to speak for the public.

Each side accuses the other of being driven by self-interest. One views Bill 7 as a necessary patch to fix nomination rules, delimitation and representation. The other calls it a constitutional Trojan horse.

What is clear is that the Bill 7 debate has now moved into a new phase. Domestic actors are no longer content to argue in courts, churches and press conferences. They are writing to the United Nations and SADC, speaking of “bloodletting” if diplomacy fails, and warning of “constitutional dictatorship” if the bill passes.

At the same time, the President is holding up a technical report with 11,860 submissions and telling citizens that “the Constitution belongs to the people of Zambia” while promising to take the text to Parliament.

In this crowded and heated space, language matters as much as law. When leaders speak of “disaster presidents,” “tribal hatred,” “hypocrisy laid bare” and “one Zambia,” they are not only arguing over clauses. They are shaping public fear and public hope.

As a nationalist platform, our task is not to cheer any camp, but to test their claims against facts, history and the actual text of the law. Politicians speak for their interests. Our duty is to speak for clarity.

© The People’s Brief | Co-filing —McCarthy Lumba, Ollus R. Ndomu & Francine Lilu