…. A CRITICAL BREAKDOWN OF THE UPND’s CONCERNS OVER THE RISKS THE PROPOSED LAW POSED TO ZAMBIA INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY—UNTOLD CONSEQUENCES OF REMOVING CRUCIAL CHECKS AND BALANCES FROM GOVERNMENT….
By Francis Maingaila
Lusaka, (05-04-2025)
The ruling United Party for National Development (UPND) has sharply criticized the failed Bill 10 proposal, emphasizing the dangers it posed to accountability, public oversight, and democratic principles.
Mark Simuwe, UPND Media Director, told journalists at a press briefing that Bill 10 represented a serious threat to Zambia’s democratic processes and public accountability.
He urged continued vigilance in safeguarding these principles, particularly among the younger generation, who must understand the significance of these issues as Bill 10 continues to be a point of contention in national discourse.
Simuwe’s primary concern centered on Bill 10’s proposal to remove the requirement for Permanent Secretaries at the Ministry of Finance to appear before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) to justify government spending.
“The architects of Bill 10 wanted to scrap accountability, not improve it,” Simuwe stated. “This wasn’t about reform; it was about regression.”
He warned that removing such accountability mechanisms would have paved the way for chaos and unchecked government expenditures, undermining trust in public institutions.
Additionally, Simuwe voiced alarm over Bill 10’s attempt to weaken the independence of crucial oversight bodies, such as the Auditor General’s Office.
The proposal to alter the tenure security of the Auditor General, he argued, would have compromised the fight against corruption.
“Weakening the Auditor General’s Office means weak public oversight. Without it, corruption thrives,” he emphasized, noting that in countries where similar institutions were undermined, accountability was practically non-existent.
Another disturbing feature of Bill 10, Simuwe highlighted, was a provision that would have protected incompetent office bearers from action until the expiration of their term.
He criticized this as an undemocratic move, saying, “It’s like electing an MP who fails to represent the people and being told to wait five years before you can do anything about it.”
This, he argued, would entrench a lack of accountability in government, ensuring that ineffective leaders remained in power.
Simuwe also addressed the issue of delimitation, which he said had been misrepresented by some quarters, including certain UPND supporters.
While the Constitution mandates delimitation every ten years, there were efforts to override this by pushing a political narrative that questioned the timing.
“That’s not just unconstitutional; it’s dangerous,” Simuwe asserted, pointing out that Parliament, not political forces, should determine the timing of such changes in line with constitutional guidelines.
He also took aim at the proponents of Bill 10 who touted proportional representation for women, youths, and persons with disabilities as a positive element.
While acknowledging the merit of such provisions, he cautioned against cherry-picking parts of the bill to justify its many problematic sections.
“You cannot isolate one attractive clause and ignore the 90% of provisions that would have undermined our democracy,” Simuwe warned.
Simuwe further responded to recent comments by Bishop Alick Banda, who had expressed disappointment over the rejection of Bill 10, calling it a missed opportunity.
“You cannot praise a bill that was overwhelmingly rejected. What was rejected was an attempt to undermine checks and balances,” Simuwe stated, reiterating that Bill 10 was a dangerous proposal for the nation’s governance framework.
On the topic of the constitutional crisis and presidential election petitions, Simuwe pointed to the Constitutional Court’s ruling that fresh nominations must be held in certain circumstances.
He argued that some were in denial about the crisis, which had practical implications for governance.
He also criticized the 14-day limit for presidential election petitions, asserting that it was insufficient time to address such a significant issue properly.
“We must revisit this clause for the sake of fairness and justice,” he urged.
Simuwe emphasized the importance of considering long-term implications when making constitutional changes.
He warned against making amendments based on short-term political gains, noting that the law must outlive all political leaders. “The law must be made for tomorrow, not just today,” he said.
Simuwe concluded by addressing the role of the Church in national discourse.
While acknowledging the Church’s right to comment on political matters, he urged that constructive responses should be expected when politicians engage with the clergy.
“The Church is not a political party, but it is made up of citizens, and politicians are also citizens,” Simuwe stated, emphasizing that democracy thrives when there is open, respectful dialogue.
Zambia’s ongoing constitutional debates have revived discussions around Bill 10, with some claiming that recent proposals echo its controversial provisions.
Simuwe, a key voice in the matter, has sought to clarify the misinterpretations surrounding the proposed amendments, emphasizing the importance of understanding the process and the real issues at stake.
Simuwe highlighted that constitutional amendments are not subject to selective voting on individual clauses. Instead, Parliament votes on the entire document as a package.
This means that Members of Parliament must either accept or reject the bill in its entirety at various legislative stages. “This principle is crucial,” Simuwe stressed. “You cannot selectively approve or reject individual clauses.”
A significant point of contention with Bill 10 was its attempt to enshrine Zambia as a “Christian Nation” in the Constitution.
While some saw this as aligning the nation with Christian values, Simuwe and his allies rejected the proposal, asserting that Zambia is a multi-religious state.
He explained that including such a provision would infringe on fundamental rights, particularly freedom of religion, by imposing one faith’s principles over others.
Another contentious provision in Bill 10 sought to replace the concept of general morality in the Constitution with “Christian morality.”
Simuwe argued that this would be divisive, as even within Christianity, moral values can vary significantly across denominations.
Imposing a single moral code on a diverse, multi-faith population, he noted, would be impractical and unjust.
Simuwe also pointed to Bill 10’s proposal to repeal Article 189(2), which safeguards the pensions of retirees by ensuring they remain on the payroll until they receive their benefits.
Removing this protection, he said, would undermine the financial security of retirees, particularly in a country where government institutions struggle to meet their obligations.
Bill 10 also proposed limiting civil servants’ participation in politics by requiring them to resign two years before elections.
Simuwe criticized this provision as an unnecessary restriction on the right to participate in public affairs, a core democratic principle.
The proposed abolition of several vital commissions, such as the Teaching Service Commission and the Local Government Service Commission, was another key concern.
Simuwe warned that these institutions play essential roles in ensuring government accountability and upholding the rule of law.
The proposed removal of the Industrial Relations Court, which expedites the resolution of employment disputes, would have denied workers timely access to justice.
Another controversial aspect of Bill 10 was its proposal to replace the presidential runoff system with a coalition government model if no candidate secured more than 50% of the vote.
Simuwe noted that while coalition governments may work in some contexts, they have often led to instability in African countries like South Sudan. He argued that such a change could be dangerous for Zambia’s political stability and democratic principles.
Bill 10 also contained provisions that would have weakened the judiciary.
Simuwe pointed to a proposal that would allow Parliament to determine the number of judges on the Supreme and Constitutional Courts, which would have compromised judicial independence.
Furthermore, the bill sought to politicize traditional leadership by giving Parliament control over the recognition and confirmation of chiefs, undermining Zambia’s dual legal system.
Bill 10 included provisions that would have granted the President the power to alter provincial boundaries without parliamentary approval, which Simuwe argued would have undermined parliamentary oversight and promoted executive overreach.
Additionally, the proposal to reintroduce Deputy Ministers—who were abolished in 2016 due to redundancy—was criticized as a wasteful and unnecessary cost.
Simuwe concluded by addressing the misconception that current constitutional discussions are a return to Bill 10. He clarified that the current proposals are distinct and should not be conflated with the previous bill.
“What we are discussing now is a different conversation,” Simuwe said. “It is our responsibility to inform citizens truthfully and protect the values that preserve our democracy.”
In closing, Simuwe urged the public to engage with the ongoing constitutional debates based on facts, avoiding political theatrics, and focusing on the core issues that truly impact the future of Zambia’s governance.
William Njombo, Religious Affairs Chairperson for the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND), has clarified the party’s position on constitutional amendments, particularly in light of debates surrounding Bill 10.
Speaking to the media, Njombo emphasized that constitutional amendments in Parliament are voted on in their entirety, not clause by clause.
He dismissed comparisons between the current constitutional review process and Bill 10, stating that the UPND remains committed to democratic principles.
Njombo addressed the rejected proposal in Bill 10 to declare Zambia a “Christian Nation.”
He argued that Zambia is a multi-religious society, and prioritizing one religion would violate the right to freedom of religion.
He also criticized attempts to replace national morality with “Christian morality,” pointing out the lack of a universal definition even within Christianity.
He opposed the proposed repeal of Article 189(2), which protects pensioners by ensuring they remain on the payroll until their benefits are processed.
Njombo said the clause is vital for safeguarding retirees’ financial security.
On civil service participation in politics, Njombo rejected the requirement for civil servants to resign two years before an election, arguing it infringes on citizens’ right to participate in public affairs.
He also criticized Bill 10’s proposal to abolish institutions like the Teaching Service Commission and Local Government Service Commission, warning that this would weaken checks and balances.
Additionally, he condemned attempts to allow Parliament to determine the number of judges in the Supreme and Constitutional Courts, saying it would compromise judicial independence.
Njombo rejected the idea of replacing presidential runoffs with coalition governments, citing instability in countries like South Sudan.
He also opposed proposals to remove parliamentary oversight in creating or merging provinces, which he said would give the President excessive power.
On the reintroduction of Deputy Ministers, Njombo said the positions were abolished in 2016 due to redundancy and cost, and restoring them would be wasteful.
He also praised the current proposal requiring ministers to vacate office 90 days before elections to promote fairness—unlike Bill 10, which allowed them to stay in office during campaigns.
Njombo concluded by reaffirming that the current constitutional reform efforts aim to protect rights, strengthen institutions, and uphold democracy, urging citizens to engage with facts rather than political rhetoric.