🇿🇲 CLOSE-UP | Makebi Frames Bill 7 Fallout as Leadership Test & Constitutional Reckoning
Makebi Zulu’s yesterday press briefing following the passage of Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 was not a routine opposition response. It was a political intervention, aimed at redefining legitimacy around the constitutional process while simultaneously staking ground in the Patriotic Front’s unresolved leadership contest.
Coming two days after Parliament passed Bill 7 with decisive numbers and a day before President Hakainde Hichilema’s expected assent, Zulu positioned himself as both a constitutional purist and a moral counterweight to what he described as executive overreach and internal party betrayal.
The briefing revolved around three pillars: constitutional ownership, moral authority within the PF, and the need for political renewal after the 2026 elections.
“The Constitution Does Not Belong to Government”
Zulu anchored his argument in constitutional theory rather than parliamentary arithmetic. Repeatedly invoking the preamble, he argued that the Bill 7 process departed from the principle of popular sovereignty.
“The Constitution does not say ‘we the government give unto you the people,’” Zulu said. “It says ‘we the people give unto ourselves.’”
This framing mirrors long-standing civil society objections to executive-driven constitutional reform in Zambia, particularly under previous administrations. However, it is important to note that Zambia’s Constitution does not prescribe a single exclusive model for initiating amendments. Past reforms, including the 2016 process, were also executive-initiated but legitimized through referenda or parliamentary thresholds.
Zulu’s claim therefore rests more on democratic philosophy than settled constitutional law.
He argued that public consultation under Bill 7 was insufficient and elite-driven, despite the Technical Committee reporting over 11,000 submissions nationwide. Whether that figure constitutes “broad consultation” remains a political judgment rather than a legal threshold defined in the Constitution.
Zulu went beyond opposing Bill 7 to outline what he framed as a corrective roadmap. He called for limits on presidential authority in driving constitutional amendments, arguing that recent events exposed structural imbalance.
“We must take back or limit the power of the president to do what we have seen in this particular case,” he said.
Here again, Zulu did not reject constitutional reform outright. He proposed a fresh, people-driven review process to begin after the 2026 elections. This position aligns with views held by sections of civil society and the Oasis Forum, whose latest attempt to halt the process was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the Bill itself.
That distinction matters. The court did not rule Bill 7 unconstitutional at this stage. It ruled that there was “nothing to conserve” because the Technical Committee had completed its mandate.
Zulu expanded the debate by linking constitutional reform to economic justice, arguing that political rights without economic guarantees are hollow.
“We must put economic rights in our Constitution,” he said, citing health and livelihoods as areas requiring constitutional protection.
While economic and social rights already exist in Zambia’s constitutional framework under directive principles, they are largely non-justiciable. Zulu’s proposal would require a fundamental redesign of enforceability, something no opposition figure has yet fully articulated in legal terms.
His economic vision, centred on agriculture, mining, tourism, and technology, echoed standard development rhetoric. No specific fiscal or institutional mechanisms were outlined at the briefing.
The most politically charged segment of Zulu’s remarks targeted PF Members of Parliament who voted for Bill 7. Without naming individuals, he framed their conduct as a moral rupture.
“Those who are going to be treacherous people amongst us and go against the will of the people should no longer have anything to do with us,” he said.
This position resonates with a PF base angered by the scale of cross-voting. More than 20 PF and opposition MPs supported the Bill, many of whom have since publicly defended their votes.
Sunday Chanda and Mulenga Kampamba, among others, have stated that they voted in line with constituency interests, particularly delimitation, not party instruction. This defence shows deeper tension within the PF: whether MPs owe primary loyalty to party positions or to local electoral incentives.
Zulu described the vote as an “individual moral failure,” but stopped short of proposing disciplinary mechanisms, reflecting the PF’s current leadership ambiguity.
More so, Zulu’s self-characterisation was deliberate. He framed himself as a servant rather than a power broker.
“Zambians do not need a boss. They need a servant,” he said.
Supporters emphasised his youth, Christian faith, and humility. This messaging contrasts with Zambia’s historically transactional politics but remains aspirational without organisational backing.
Notably, Zulu did not address criticism surrounding his dual role in PF internal politics and his high-profile involvement in matters relating to the late former President Edgar Lungu’s burial, an issue that has polarised public opinion. The omission was conspicuous.
Taken together, the press briefing functioned less as a response to Bill 7 and more as a leadership audition. It combined constitutional critique, moral positioning, and party reform into a single narrative.
Factually, Bill 7 has passed all parliamentary thresholds. The courts have declined interim intervention. Presidential assent is imminent.
Zulu’s argument therefore operates in the political, not legal, arena. Its success will depend on whether it translates into structure, numbers, and unified opposition leadership.
In the immediate aftermath of Bill 7, Zulu succeeded in reframing the debate from procedure to legitimacy and from parliamentary votes to values. Whether that reframing survives contact with grassroots mobilisation remains an open question.
For now, his briefing signals intent, not momentum.
© The People’s Brief | Goran Handya & Tracey Shumba