BILL 7 IN THE LIGHT: EXAMINING EACH AMENDMENT AND THE DEBATE AROUND IT
A Studied Response by Rev Walter Mwambazi
In my earlier reflections over the last two days, I argued for withdrawal of Bill 7. Later, I embraced the idea that instead of shelving the process, we must drag it into the light – publish submissions, debate openly, and let citizens themselves decide. With that in mind, I want to walk through each of the proposed amendments in Bill 7, raise the counterarguments voiced by stakeholders, and add balancing points where they exist.
✍ (a) Increase in Constituency Seats: 156 to 211
(revise the composition of the National Assembly to provide for the increase in the number of constituencybased seats from one hundred and fifty-six to two hundred and eleven to actualise the delimitation report by the Electoral Commission)
✅ Proposal: Expand parliamentary seats to reflect the Electoral Commission’s delimitation report.
Counterarguments:
Critics argue this will balloon costs in an already strained economy. More MPs mean more salaries, allowances, and administrative overhead.
Some see it as a political move to create safe seats for ruling party dominance.
What criteria will be used to determine which constituencies are divided and in what way? This will bolster seats for the party in charge by utilizing the delimitation exercise in their strongholds
⚖️ Balancing Point:
Proponents argue that population growth and uneven representation demand new constituencies. Without expansion, rural and peri-urban areas risk underrepresentation.
✍ (b) Mixed-Member Proportional Representation
(revise the electoral system for election to the National Assembly to provide for a mixed-member proportional representation electoral system to guarantee the representation of women, youths and persons with disabilities)
✅Proposal: Guarantee representation for women, youth, and persons with disabilities.
Counterarguments:
Skeptics fear this could be tokenistic, with parties filling quotas without empowering these groups meaningfully.
Others worry about complexity – will voters understand the system, and will it be implemented fairly?
⚖️ Balancing Point:
Advocates say Zambia’s democracy has long excluded marginalized voices. Proportional representation could finally give them a seat at the table.
✍ (c) Fresh Nominations on Resignation
(revise the provision relating to filing of fresh nominations on resignation of a candidate)
✅Proposal: Clarify rules for candidates who resign and re-file nominations.
Counterarguments:
Critics see this as a loophole for political maneuvering, allowing candidates to game the system.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
Clear rules could prevent confusion and litigation, ensuring smoother elections.
✍ (d) By-Elections
(revise the provisions relating to by-elections)
✅ Proposal: Revise procedures governing by-elections.
Counterarguments:
Stakeholders worry this could weaken accountability, especially if by-elections are delayed or restricted.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
Streamlining by-elections could reduce costs and political instability.
✍ (e) Nominated Members of Parliament
(revise the number of nominated Members of Parliament)
✅Proposal: Revise the number of nominated MPs.
Counterarguments:
Critics argue nominated MPs are often used to reward loyalists, undermining democratic legitimacy.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
Nominated seats can ensure representation of groups who may not win elections but whose voices matter nationally.
✍ (f) Harmonize Parliament and Council Terms
(harmonise the term of Parliament and council to achieve a five-year term)
✅Proposal: Align both to five-year terms.
Counterarguments:
Some fear this could reduce flexibility, especially if councils need staggered elections for accountability.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
Harmonization could reduce election fatigue and costs, while creating consistency across governance levels.
✍ (g) Vacancies for Ministers Before Elections
✅Proposal: Ministers vacate office 90 days before a general election.
Counterarguments:
Critics worry this could destabilize governance, leaving ministries rudderless during critical pre-election periods.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
It could prevent incumbents from abusing state resources for campaigns.
✍ (h) Remove Two-Term Limit for Mayors and Council Chairpersons
✅Proposal: Allow indefinite re-election.
Counterarguments:
Seen as a power entrenchment tool, risking local political dynasties.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
If citizens want continuity, they should have the right to re-elect effective leaders.
✍ (i) MPs in Council Composition
✅Proposal: Include constituency MPs in councils.
Counterarguments:
Critics say this blurs separation of powers, giving MPs undue influence at local level.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
MPs already represent local constituencies; their inclusion could improve coordination between national and local governance.
✍ (j) Qualifications for Secretary to the Cabinet
✅Proposal: Revise qualifications.
Counterarguments:
Stakeholders fear this could lower standards or politicize the role.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
Updating qualifications could modernize the office, aligning it with current governance needs.
✍ (k) Attorney-General and Solicitor-General Continuity
✅Proposal: Allow them to remain in office until successors are appointed.
Counterarguments:
Critics worry this could delay appointments and entrench partisan figures.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
Continuity ensures legal stability during transitions.
✍ (l) Redefinition of “Child” and “Adult”
✅Proposal: Revise definitions.
Counterarguments:
Stakeholders fear this could impact rights, especially around marriage, voting, or criminal responsibility.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
Clearer definitions could align Zambia with international conventions and protect vulnerable groups.
✍ (m) Election Petition Timelines
✅Proposal: Clarify period for concluding petitions.
Counterarguments:
Critics worry timelines may be too short, denying justice, or too long, delaying governance.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
Clear timelines prevent endless litigation and uncertainty.
✍ (n) Miscellaneous Provisions
Catch-all for incidental matters.
Counterarguments:
Stakeholders fear this is a blank cheque, allowing hidden clauses to slip through.
⚖️ Balancing Point:
Technical adjustments may be necessary to align reforms with existing law.
Conclusion: Transparency is the Only Way Forward
Each amendment has arguments for and against. Some proposals could strengthen democracy, others risk undermining it. But the REAL ISSUE is not JUST THE CONTENT – it’s the PROCESS. Without TRANSPARENCY, every clause is suspect. Without publishing submissions, every objection feels silenced.
So my call remains: publish the submissions, debate openly, and let citizens decide. Bill 7 must face the light of day. Only then can we separate genuine reform from political maneuvering, and only then can Zambia move beyond the shadow of Bill 10 into a future where constitutional reform is truly people-driven.
Thanks for the article ba Mwambazi.