NO MR PRESIDENT, YOU CAN’T MAKE OUR CONSTITUTION ABOUT YOUR PERSON, SAYS LAURA AS SHE COUNSELS PRESIDENT HICHILEMA
President Hichilema, in his press address this morning, started by setting out the economic survival, first, and then progress that the country has made, since he came into office.
I agree that his government must be commended for how it has managed the economy.
The simple fact is that no one has concretely told us how they could have painlessly charted the path out of the debilitating debt and economic mess we were in.
True, too, is that tis government’s social spending has been remarkable, considering how dry our coffers were.
It was the President’s thoughts on the Constitution that worried me. I just don’t get how the President can insist that those who have expressed their concern with the Bill 7 process, are doing so as a personal slight against him.
No, Mr President, you can’t make our constitution about your person. The supreme law of the land belongs to the people of the land. We the people give ourselves this constitution – is what the preamble says. It is, therefore, patently wrong to center one of the constitution’s own creations, in discussing its amendment. Mr President, your office is a creature of the constitution. Never take its discussion, personally.
Let me address the President’s claim that this is the first time citizens are standing up against a constitutional amendment, they do not want.
What about Bill 10 and President Chiluba’s third term bid? Surely the President remembers how both those attempts at amending the constitution in the interest of the sitting government, were defeated by the people. This President was actually part of rejecting Bill 10. That citizen resistance was loud and did go into the streets – peacefully. Any violence came from the then government.
I will have to the same question the President asked us – If citizens stood up against President Chiluba’s and President Lungu’s attempts to amend the constitution in a way they did not like, why not him? Why was standing up against Bill 10 the right of citizens, but against Bill 7, it is a personal attack on the sitting President?
What has changed?
As for 1996, come on Mr President!
The reason the Mung’omba Commission was set up, was because the day after the 1996 constitution passed, it was already a big problem. As many will remember, 1996 was a most problematic amendment whose aim was to introduce the parentage clause that barred President Kaunda from contesting the next election and also the simple majority win for the Presidential election that gave us a problematic first Mwanawasa term. Both those changes upset citizens enough to be subsequently changed.
That is exactly where we would be if Bill 7 passed. Needing an amendment even before the President’s signature dried on it.
Then, there is this idea of fronting CDF to justify delimitation.
CDF is less than 5% of the budget. Why not speak about all the other non- constituency-based resources that have the responsibility of changing our rural areas? Most mischievous about that argument is to claim that one needs delimitation in order to share CDF, equitably.
The constitution does not say Kanchibiya and Lusaka Central should receive the same CDF amount. That decision is made by the sitting government just like it decides the CDF amount. Just like UPND did not need a constitutional amendment to increase CDF, it does not need one to share CDF according to need.
By the way, Mr President, by stating that those who do not want the constitution amended in a rushed, government-centred manner are motivated by the desire to have someone else in office, it can be concluded that you too want to change the constitution right now, only for political reasons.
I will end with the matter of dialogue.
Yes, Mr President, you did invite CSOs to State House to discuss Bill 7. You have to agree, though, that the sense of disappointment felt by many arises directly from that meeting and the promise you categorically made when deferring the passage of Bill 7 through Parliament.
Mr President no one in that meeting would have agreed to the Technical Committee being set up only on Bill 7 clauses. Only to launder the rejected Bill in a rushed, shoddy process where no two sittings followed the same rules.
Essentially the feeling Sir, is of being promised a hearty meal of chicken and uncovering the the plate to find chicken feet swimming in watery soup.
Dialogue is only useful if both parties can expect that it is being done in good faith, and nothing agreed will be fundamentally changed, post discussion. Dialogue is not an end in itself. It is not meant to be a box ticking exercise.
To end, here is a variation of the question the President asked the nation this morning. What is in Bill 7 that the UPND so desperately wants it, now?
Laura Miti
Well said, Laura. I believe the President has completely lost the argument on Bill 7 after yesterday’s press briefing. He spent far too much time questioning why various interest groups oppose the bill, yet failed to convincingly explain why Bill 7 must be passed before the elections and at all costs. Citing the fact that past governments managed to amend the Constitution during election years is a weak justification. Mr. President, times change, contexts shift, and it’s crucial to “read the room” based on today’s realities.
What’s even more striking is the contradiction: you and your party publicly express confidence in winning the 2026 elections, yet your urgency to rush Bill 7 suggests fear that a new government may block it afterward. That inconsistency alone undermines your case.
Here’s some advice for HH and the UPND: in my view, your only real vulnerabilities going into 2026 are the electricity situation and Bill 7. The electricity issue, though serious is survivable; the electorate can still give you a comfortable victory if that is the only major concern. But adding the weight and controversy of Bill 7 to the ballot is political dice-rolling. On this one, the government is really pushing its luck.
Zambians are not foolish.
Laura,the root cause of all these suspicions, confusing and yes, hatred is the fact that the wounds that the PF government inflicted on the Zambian Psyche has not fully healed .PF has not been held accountable for the many atrocities they committed.They have been let free with the simple excuse that they lost the elections because of cadersm alone ignoring and sweeping every other savage filth under the carpet.Elder statesmen,the church and even academia have failed to bring to bear on PF to fully apologise at a national day of prayer and reconciliation
Today the prosecution of PF criminals is spinned as tribal persecution,legacy issues and effects of lawlessness such illegal land settlements and seizures have been forgotten but placed on the current government to solve,we have all been urged to forget the shameful PF lists of tribal appointments as if
it never happened
Laura, please understand that a Constitution is never God-given but is actually a document crafted by politicians held in trust,not the masses .As long as PF is not fully held accountable, suspicions,protests,riots,hatred and even bloodshed shall always be an ever present danger
Laura Miti, if you presented a balanced analysis, you could have explained the basis for why the president felt those who are against the procedure and the content of the constitutional amendment are doing this due to HH being the current president. Bill 10 was voted against in Parliament. Why dont we allow a democratic process of voting out Bill 7 in the parliament after all processes are done??
She raises some good points but this is a good question? Perhaps Laura with all her analysis deliberately overlooked this.
Well said Laura as you have hit the nail right on
the head.Just stop the amendment and sort
Other issues like farmers payment and loadshedding.
Moto those were addressed and are being sorted out. Didnt the minister state this week or late last that farmers wiuld be paid and when? Didnt the President explain about 2mgwatt solar stations in all consistuencies that would be started using CDF using the 2026. And Nyimba was used as a example of why 2mgwatt consumption sgould be loadshedded?
Lets learn to listen. And you did you would hear what the opposition is saying daily. Its about HH. Not the Bill. If it was the bill they would tell us exactly what in the bill is bad.
Tell us what exactly the bill says is bad?
Generalisation and innuendo wont get us anywhere. We want to point at personalities rather than the issue. Until we can be objective in our outlook. We will always be derailed by innuendo and generalisations that lack substance.
Just to demonstrate what I mean. The President spoke about Nyimba. Which has a very low uptake of power. Lets have a transparent view of what the rest of the country looks like. Further one a cloudy and rainy day. What happens when power is not able to be generated? Yes, solar is one quick fix to the problem. But we need to go on further and make sure all contigencies are examined.
Laura is all over the place and fails to do the one thing she is paid to do. Where are human rights in this country NOT being upheld.
Laura can not tell me that in all the Police stations the rights of citizens are not being violeted? She can not tell me that labour laws are being upheld? She can not tell me that child rights and child labour is being protected? She can not tell me GBV stats are down and the message of GBV is getting to the citizens. She can not tell me that Immigration officers are address the influx of human traffickers and illigal immgrants when we just saw a story going viral of a Rwandese store owner that was shot in Mtendere and says he moving back “home” to Kanyama. Is Kamanya now in Rwanda? Why cant immigration find this man? Should we also insist on documentation when one gets treatment in Health care institutions?
Back to Laura, if She spent one hour addressing human rights issues as she spends making noise about HH Zambia would a alot better that her naive critical analysis.
Laura has missed the point completely. The issue is Bill 7, right? Because this is what the Government had presented and their were some people who opposed it and some even went to Court. The ConCourt RULED and then the Government obliged by constituting a Committee which went round the Country, for wide consultation and inclusivity. About what? The Government agenda of Bill 7! So, what is the problem with Bill 7? Please specify, and why did these people not submit against that particular provision. The Government has complied with the requirements of the Constitution and the ConCourt RULING. But the same few people are still opposing with no facts and evidence, if we may apply legal language.