CSOs WARN NEW PUBLIC GATHERING BILL COULD DRAG ZAMBIA BACK TO COLONIAL ERA CONTROLS
Civil society organisations have raised serious alarm over what they describe as “dangerously broad drafting” in Zambia’s proposed Public Gathering Bill, 2026, warning that the law’s current wording could extend State regulation far beyond large public demonstrations and into the fabric of everyday civic life.
In submissions before Parliament, the Consortium of Civil Society Organisations on Good Governance and Constitutionalism, chaired by Isaac Mwanza, says the Bill is drafted so widely that ordinary gatherings involving as few as three people could potentially be captured under the law.
That, they argue, is where the danger lies.
Rather than narrowly regulating assemblies that genuinely affect public order, traffic flow, or public safety, the Bill’s current language risks sweeping in private meetings, indoor conferences, media briefings, academic discussions, professional forums, and even family gatherings activities that have never traditionally been treated as matters requiring State oversight.
Civil society says such drafting creates legal uncertainty and opens the door to overreach.
“The Bill, as currently framed, is overly expansive and risks criminalising ordinary social, professional and civic interaction through vague and sweeping definitions,” the Consortium argues.
At the heart of the concern is the definition of “public gathering” and “public place,” which critics say lacks clear limits and constitutional safeguards.
Without precise thresholds, CSOs warn, enforcement could become arbitrary with citizens left unsure whether routine meetings fall within legal obligations designed for mass public assemblies.
The coalition fears that broad wording could produce a chilling effect, where citizens, journalists, churches, student groups, advocacy organisations and professional bodies begin self-censoring or avoiding gatherings altogether for fear of falling foul of the law.
In constitutional terms, they argue, that is how freedoms are weakened not always through outright bans, but through vague laws that make lawful activity feel risky.
To address the problem, the Consortium is urging Parliament to sharply narrow the Bill’s scope by defining a public gathering as:
“An assembly of 25 or more persons in a public place for a common purpose, where such assembly is reasonably expected to have an impact on public order, public safety, traffic movement, or the ordinary use of public space.”
They also want explicit exemptions for private homes, indoor meetings not open to the public, press briefings, professional meetings, academic discussions, and other private assemblies.
The message from civil society is clear:
If the law is written too broadly, it will not simply regulate public gatherings it could regulate public life itself.