Constitutional Amendments Must Not Be Treated As A Political Battleground
By Sunday Chanda
I watched with keen interest as Minister of Justice HON Princess Kasune spoke on ZNBC last night. She was unequivocal: there will be no attempts to remove progressive clauses from the Constitution – such as the 50+1 threshold, the running mate system, and the five-year presidential term. We will hold her and Government to that!
Given this assurance, rather than engaging in speculation and conjecture, it is only prudent that we await the official proposals from the Government. Once those amendments are tabled, we can subject them to thorough scrutiny, dissecting them line by line, to ensure they align with the principles of democracy, good governance, and the rule of law.
Speculating about constitutional amendments before they are officially presented risks derailing meaningful engagement. Constitutional reform is a serious exercise that demands objectivity, clarity, and precision; not fear-mongering or premature opposition based on assumptions. A responsible approach requires that we engage with actual proposals, not imagined threats. Let us, therefore, anchor our discussions in facts rather than political anxieties
It is a universally accepted legal reality that there is no such thing as a perfect Constitution. The supreme law of any nation is a living document, responsive to social, political, and economic changes. The fact that constitutional amendments may be proposed should not, in itself, be viewed with suspicion. What matters is the intent and substance of those amendments.
Non-contentious clauses, particularly those aimed at enhancing governance, accountability, and transparency, should be welcomed. If reforms seek to strengthen democratic institutions, improve public administration, enhance the independence of oversight bodies, or clarify ambiguities in existing laws, then they must be debated in good faith, with the singular aim of refining Zambia’s governance framework.
The correct approach to constitutional reform is one that is principle-driven rather than politically motivated. Once the proposed amendments are tabled, we must interrogate them within the following framework:
1. Necessity – Is the amendment essential for improving governance or addressing legal gaps?
2. Proportionality – Does the amendment achieve its intended objective without unduly restricting fundamental rights or weakening democratic structures?
3. Public Interest – Does the amendment serve the Zambian people, rather than narrow political or partisan interests?
4. Constitutional Integrity – Does the amendment uphold the core tenets of democracy, separation of powers, and the rule of law?
This kind of structured engagement ensures that constitutional amendments are not treated as a political battleground but as a legislative process aimed at improving governance while safeguarding democracy.
Rather than assuming the worst, let us wait for the proposed amendments and engage with them on their merits. Where amendments strengthen governance, transparency, and accountability, they should be supported. However, if any proposal undermines democratic principles, we will oppose it – not based on speculation, but on clear constitutional reasoning.
Therefore my friends, let us prepare to engage with facts, interrogate the amendments once presented with intellectual rigor, and ensure that any constitutional changes serve the greater good of Zambia, not individual interests!
Kalebalika!
[The Author is Member of Parliament for Kanchibiya Constituency.]