Oasis Forum Seeks to Withdraw Bill 7 Constitutional Petition

🇿🇲 BRIEFING | Oasis Forum Seeks to Withdraw Bill 7 Constitutional Petition

The Oasis Forum has asked the Constitutional Court to allow it to discontinue a petition challenging the legality of the Technical Committee appointed to review proposed constitutional amendments under Bill 7 of 2025.

In submissions filed before the court, lawyer Linda Kasonde of LCK Chambers, acting on behalf of the petitioners, said her clients had elected not to proceed with the matter after further consideration.

“After further consideration and upon instructions, the petitioners have elected not to proceed further with the petition,” Ms Kasonde submitted.

She told the court that the decision to discontinue was voluntary, made in good faith, and consistent with Order X Rule 3 of the Constitutional Court Rules. The application, she said, was made without any admission of liability or concession on the merits of the case.

“The discontinuance of the petition will occasion no prejudice to the respondent. No final determination has been made by this court,” the submission reads.

Ms Kasonde added that allowing the withdrawal would serve the interests of justice, judicial economy, and orderly case management.

The petition was filed under the Oasis Forum, whose members include the Law Association of Zambia, the Non-Governmental Organisations Coordinating Council, the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia, the Council of Churches in Zambia, the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the LCK Freedom Foundation.

The Attorney General was cited as the respondent, while the Consortium of Civil Society Organisations on Governance and lawyer Eric Sakala joined the proceedings as interested parties.

The petition sought to nullify the establishment, mandate, and outputs of the 25-member Technical Committee appointed by President Hakainde Hichilema on October 2, 2025, to guide proposed constitutional amendments under Bill 7. The petitioners alleged breaches of several constitutional provisions, including Articles 1(2), 5, 8, 9, 90, 91(2), 91(3), 92(1), 92(2)(f), and 92(2)(j).

In their application to discontinue, the petitioners noted that the issues raised overlapped with other ongoing cases, including 2025/CCZ/0015, 2025/HP/1614, and 2025/CCZ/009, raising concerns about parallel proceedings before the courts.

The Constitutional Court is yet to rule on the application to discontinue the petition.

© The People’s Brief | Francine Lilu