A Response to Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma, Facts Must Guide Constitutional Debate
By Tobbius Chilembo Hamunkoyo-LLB
The article by Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma, which has been widely shared on a Patriotic Front PF page,in my view it is built on conclusions that are not supported by Zambian constitutional law.
Being shared on a political party page does not make an argument legally correct. Constitutional debate must be guided by facts and law, not political emotion or wishful thinking on social media.
To begin with, the Constitutional Court of Zambia never declared Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 null and void. The Court did not stop Parliament from amending the Constitution. What the Court stated was that constitutional amendments should be preceded by wide consultation, preferably through a Technical Committee or a similar mechanism, to allow broader citizen input beyond representation through Members of Parliament.
This guidance from the Court was procedural, not prohibitive.To be honest it was not a cancellation of Bill 7, nor was it a legal barrier to Parliament continuing with the amendment process, people should be honest in this country. Describing Bill 7 as “STILLBORN” by Thandiwe Ketis Ngoma is therefore misleading and politically dishonest.Truth be told , in law, a statute only becomes invalid when a court of competent Jurisdiction expressly declares it unconstitutional. To date, no such judgment exists.
For the avoidance of doubt, Constitution Amendment Act No. 7 of 2025 is law. It was debated in Parliament and passed with 135 votes, far above the constitutional threshold of 111 votes required for constitutional amendments imagine. This was not a narrow or accidental outcome; it was an overwhelming parliamentary decision by people that Zambians sent to Parliament. The Bill was later assented to by the President voted by Zambians, as required by the Constitution. Once presidential assent is given, a law enjoys a presumption of constitutionality until a court rules otherwise. Articles, opinions, CSO statements, or Facebook posts cannot suspend the operation of the Constitution.
No individual, political party, or civil society organisation has the power to invalidate a law that was lawfully passed by Parliament. Members of Parliament are constitutionally mandated representatives of the people of Zambia, including civil society interests. When they vote in Parliament, they exercise authority directly derived from the people of Zambia. Disagreeing with how MPs voted does not take away the legality of their mandate, let us be honest mwebantu (people) .
Madam Ngoma’s claim that an “illegal process cannot produce a legal outcome” deliberately ignores how constitutional democracy functions in Zambia and the world at large.
Zambia operates under the separation of powers. Parliament makes laws, the Executive initiates and assents to laws, and the Judiciary interprets the law and determines validity. If there were procedural defects, the correct forum is the courts of competent Jurisdiction, not the media or political commentary.
Her comparison of Bill 7 to apartheid South Africa is not only misplaced but irresponsible. Apartheid was a racially oppressive system that denied fundamental rights and violated international law. Bill 7 does nothing of the sort. It does not abolish elections, it does not disenfranchise citizens, and it does not suspend constitutional governance. Such unfounded and exaggerated comparisons weaken serious constitutional discourse.
There is also persistent confusion about public participation. Zambia is a representative democracy, not a referendum state. Public consultation is important, but it does not replace Parliament. MPs are elected to legislate on behalf of the people, and they exercised that authority as provided for under the Constitution.
Let us be honest, disagreement with a law does not make it unconstitutional.
The legal position is therefore clear. There is no court judgment nullifying Bill 7. The Constitutional Court only gave guidance on consultation. Constitution Amendment Act No. 7 of 2025 remains valid law. Anyone who believes otherwise is free to challenge it in the court of competent Jurisdiction. Denying its existence, however, is not a legal argument, it is actually political dreaming.
Finally, it must be said plainly, President Hakainde Hichilema is playing constitutional chess, not checkers. By following parliamentary procedure, securing overwhelming legislative support, and respecting institutional roles, he has effectively checkmated his critics within the confines of the law. Criticism is welcome in a democracy, but it must be grounded in legal reality.
This matter is settled in law. Future amendments may still be debated or challenged through lawful means. But refusing to accept an existing law is not constitutional bravery. If anything, It is political denial disguised as legal reasoning, full stop.