FIVE REASONS WHY GOVERNMENT SHOULD WITHDRAW AND NOT AMEND BILL 7 OF 2025
By Linda Kasonde
The process is just as important as the content. Amending Bill 7 now will produce an equally flawed outcome for the following reasons:
1. There’s still not enough time before the election to have broad based national consultations
2. It’s too close to the election which risks the process and content being politicised.
3. History has shown us the successive Governments have tried to put in clauses that will favour the incumbent maintaining power.
4. The best time to restart this process is soon after a general election to give Zambians more time to engage with the content.
5. The process should be people-driven not government driven
Please do all you can to stop the process. There is abuse intended, e.g. they want to dissolve parliament one day before elections so that they can abuse government resources. # months before elections was put there to precisely prevent the abuse, and it has held for 60 years. These imposed amendments are a precursor to further changes in their second term ,given the numbers they propose for parliament. Second term limit is next to go.
I do not understand why the 90 days dissolution of Parliament before the date of elections is being put up for amendment. Linda Kasonde should, however, explain if the process the government has started is lawful or unlawful. All parliaments in democracies have power to amend some parts of national constitutions so long a certain minimum level of support among MPs can be commanded. That is the whole truth.
The timing of a review of the constitution is provided within the constitution itself. Do people even bother to read it? Or they are just fixated on demonising without reasoning?
I don’t know what happened to Ms. Linda Kasonde because the write-up here does not reflect the level of thinking she used to be at. She listed 5 reasons, but almost all of them are just talking about elections being close, which also does not hold water. For goodness’ sake, the election is more than 1 year 4 months away, surely how long do we need to make a decision if we can’t make a decision in over a year? Clearly, if we can’t make a decision as a country within a year, it just means we are not serious as a country, simple. Furthermore, she has not mentioned any proposal that is bad in her eyes; she just generalised everything. Surely, how do we move forward as a country if our thinking is at this level? At her level, it would have made sense if she had referred to the problematic proposals and why she thinks they are problematic, so that people could debate those particular proposals. Intelligent discourse, especially ones like this, demands that people with a different viewpoint bring out issues of concern clearly so that others with also with a different viewpoint from them can respond appropriately, unlike just shooting in the dark, as is the case right now for those opposing the proposed constitution amendment. For instance, I’m not for the proportional representation proposal because if feel it erodes the essence of democracy democracy where people choose the people they want in a competitive contest, unlike the proposal to give advantage to certain people without considering the will of the people. In my opinion, everyone should compete fairly in an election, as there is currently nothing that stops anyone from doing so. But this does not mean the whole process for the constitution amendment should be stopped just because of this one proposal, certainly not.
I don’t know what happened to Ms. Linda Kasonde because the write-up here does not reflect the level of thinking she used to be at. She has listed 5 reasons, but almost all of them are just talking about elections being close, which also does not hold water. For goodness’ sake, the elections are more than 1 year 4 months away, surely how long do we need to make a decision if we can’t make a decision in over a year? Clearly, if we can’t make a decision as a country within a year, it simply means we are not serious as a country. Furthermore, she has not mentioned any proposal that is bad in her eyes; she just generalised everything. Surely, how do we move forward as a country if our thinking is at this level? At her level, it would have made sense if she had referred to the problematic proposals and why she thinks they are problematic, so that people can debate those particular proposals. Intelligent discourse, especially one like this, demands that people with a different viewpoint bring out issues of concern clearly so that others with also with a different viewpoint from them can respond appropriately, unlike just shooting in the dark, as is the case right now for those opposing the proposed constitution amendment. For instance, I’m not for the proposal of proportional representation because I feel it erodes the essence of democracy, where people choose the leaders they want in a competitive contest, unlike the proposal this proposal, which intends to give advantage to certain people, which in essence erodes the will of the people. In my opinion, everyone should compete fairly in an election, as there is currently nothing that stops anyone from doing so. But this does not mean the whole process for the constitution amendment should be stopped just because of this one proposal, certainly not.
The main reason is that it is less important than
Other bigger problems to sort out like load shedding, doctors unable to be put on salary
Etc.
Very sounds like a good reason but the constitution amendment does not stop all those things you have mentioned from happening. The law enactments are a function of parliament but what you mentioned have more to do with the executive part of government and both of these can happen simultaneously. There no extra funding required to finance the amendment as it alredy part of the duty of parliament to enact laws.
All these sound very sounds reasons but the constitution amendment does not stop all those things you have mentioned from happening. The law enactments are a function of parliament but what you mentioned have more to do with the executive part of government and both of these can happen simultaneously. There no extra funding required to finance the amendment as it alredy part of the duty of parliament to enact laws.