MONDAY WILL SEPARATE REPRESENTATIVES FROM MERCENARIES
Fellow citizens,
15 December 2025 will not be an ordinary sitting of Parliament. It will be a constitutional reckoning disguised as a vote.
Tomorrow, Zambians will finally discover whether those they elected to Parliament went there to represent the sovereign will of the people, or merely to secure allowances, appointments, and political insurance for their stomachs, families, and futures.
The vote on Bill No. 7 is not about reform. It is about fidelity to the Constitution. It will expose who still remembers their oath of office under the Supremacy Clause and who has reduced public service to a career survival strategy.
AN ILLEGAL BILL CANNOT BE RESCUED BY ARROGANCE
Bill No. 7 is not controversial because it is misunderstood. It is controversial because it is constitutionally compromised.
The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) did not issue a political press statement. It presented a legal opinion grounded in the Constitution of Zambia Amendment Act, 2016, particularly Article 1(2), which declares the Constitution supreme and binding on all persons and organs of the State, Article 79, which prescribes the mandatory procedure for constitutional amendment, including heightened thresholds and, where required, a referendum of the people and Article 128, which vests interpretive authority in the Constitutional Court, not in political enthusiasm or parliamentary impatience.
The LAZ President merely articulated what constitutional lawyers already know a defective constitutional process cannot be cured by numbers, noise, or nerves.
Yet instead of reasoned engagement, the nation witnessed defensiveness dressed up as authority, hostility masquerading as confidence, and political impatience substituting constitutional discipline most vividly in how Imanga Wamunyima responded to the legal position presented.
That was not robustness. It was contempt for constitutionalism.
WHEN PARLIAMENTARIANS FEAR LAWYERS, DEMOCRACY IS IN TROUBLE
A confident government welcomes scrutiny. A lawful Bill survives legal interrogation.
Bill No. 7, however, has depended on political bullying instead of persuasion, speed instead of genuine public participation contrary to the democratic ethos underpinning Article 79 and party loyalty tests in place of constitutional fidelity.
If this Bill were clean, it would not fear lawyers. If it were lawful, it would not resent courts. If it were democratic, it would not rush past the people.
A Constitution is not amended the way one amends a party manifesto.
THE SCRAPPING OF BY-ELECTIONS: SILENCING THE PEOPLE
Among the most dangerous proposals in Bill No. 7 is the attempt to scrap by-elections.
By-elections are not an inconvenience, they are a democratic weapon in the hands of the people. They allow citizens to punish betrayal, arrogance, and non-performance. Removing them is not reform it is political insulation.
A leader who no longer fears the electorate becomes reckless. A Parliament that fears voters seeks to disable them.
Bill No. 7 seeks to disarm the people.
NOMINATED MPS: EXECUTIVE OVERREACH BY DESIGN
Equally troubling is the proposed increase in nominated Members of Parliament.
Why does the President want more nominated MPs? By what criteria will they be selected? And for what public purpose?
The answer is painfully clear to saturate Parliament with executive loyalty, weaken oversight, and dilute the people’s electoral voice.
An expanded nominated bloc does not strengthen democracy. It concentrates power, rewards obedience, and converts Parliament into an extension of State House.
REMOVAL OF MAYORAL TERM LIMITS: LEGALISING MEDIOCRITY
The removal of term limits for Mayors represents another silent assault on accountability.
Term limits exist to protect citizens from entrenched under-performance. Removing them means a failing Mayor can be imposed indefinitely, regardless of incompetence, arrogance, or neglect.
Leadership without limits breeds entitlement. Entitlement breeds abuse.
DELIMITATION OR POLITICAL ENGINEERING?
The so-called delimitation exercise is being sold as an administrative necessity. In truth, it risks becoming political engineering a rearrangement of electoral boundaries designed not to reflect population justice, but to accommodate partisan appetite.
This is not about fairness. It is about “our turn to eat” geography.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT SPOKE — POLITICIANS COVERED THEIR EARS
Zambia is not governed by Cabinet resolutions. It is governed by the Constitution.
Our constitutional jurisprudence, emanating from the Constitutional Court under Article 128, has consistently affirmed a simple doctrine. Parliament is powerful, but it is not supreme.
Where the Constitution prescribes a procedure, that procedure is not optional. Where it demands public participation or a referendum, political convenience is not a substitute.
Any amendment process that sidesteps Article 79 safeguards, weakens participatory democracy, or smuggles structural changes under the language of inclusion is constitutionally stillborn, no matter how many hands are raised in Parliament.
JUDICIAL SILENCE
Equally condemnable is a judicial system that appears increasingly timid, selective, and hesitant in defending the supreme law it is sworn to protect.
A judiciary that hesitates in moments of constitutional danger is not neutral it is complicit by silence.
COWARDICE IN THE OPPOSITION
History will also judge the selfish and cowardly opposition leadership, especially presidential hopefuls who recognised the danger but chose comfort over courage.
When the Constitution is under attack, neutrality is betrayal.
COPY-PASTE LEADERSHIP
Let us speak plainly this governance style is borrowed. Centralised power, weakened institutions, controlled legislatures, and intimidated critics represent copy-and-paste governance imported wholesale and imposed without consent.
Zambia did not fight for multiparty democracy to become a carbon copy of authoritarian experiments elsewhere.
MONDAY IS A LINE DRAWN BY THE CONSTITUTION
On Monday, every Member of Parliament will be recorded not by party secretariats, but by constitutional history.
There will be no hiding behind party whips, no refuge in instructions from above, and no argument that numbers defeat ilegality.
Each vote will answer one unavoidable question:
Did you vote for the Constitution, or for yourself?
THE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING
Zambians may struggle economically, but they are not intellectually bankrupt. They may be patient, but they are not blind.
Tomorrow, Parliament will either reaffirm itself as an institution of representation and constitutional obedience or confirm fears that it has become a trading floor where loyalty is exchanged for survival.
History will remember this vote.
So will the courts.
So will the Constitution.
And most importantly —So will the people.
I remain,
Simpamba Abraham
Together We Can
Ichalo Bantu!
Time Will Tell. ✍️