OASIS FORUM WRITES TO PRESIDENT HAKAINDE HICHILEMA

OASIS FORUM WRITES TO PRESIDENT HAKAINDE HICHILEMA

29th November, 2025
His Excellency Mr. Hakainde Hichilema
The Republican President
Plot 1, Independence Avenue
State House
Lusaka


Dear Mr. President

RE: OASIS FORUM POSITION ON BILL 7 DIALOGUE

Reference is made to the captioned matter.

Following the Press Release from State House dated 23rd November, 2025 inviting organizations planning to protest against the current constitutional reform to meet inside State House, for structured, solution-oriented conversations, Oasis Forum responded to the call and met with you Mr. President on 28th November, 2025.

The Oasis Forum, a consortium comprising the church, civil society and the legal profession, did initially formally write an Open Letter to you Mr. President on 11th November, 2025, imploring you as the Head of State to take decisive action on a number of critical concerns with the current Constitutional reform process to safeguard the integrity of Zambia’s foundational law. In the said Open letter, Oasis Forum made it clear that it stood ready to engage constructively with a process that meets the standards of transparency and inclusivity that the Zambian people deserve.

We want to make it clear Mr. President, CONSTITUTION MAKING, INCLUDING AMENDING, IS ABOUT PROCESS AND CONTENT.

In the case of Bill 7, BOTH THE PROCESS AND CONTENT ARE OF GRAVE CONCERN to the OASIS FORUM.

Our specific concerns with Bill 7 include:

1. Bill 7 Violets Specific Orders of the Constitutional Court Regarding Constitutional Reform Process
The Constitutional Court in the case of Celestine Mukandila and Munir Zulu vs Attorney General declared that the decision by Government to initiate a constitution amendment process culminating into Bill 7 before undertaking wide consultations with the People goes against the spirit of Articles 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9. 61, 90, 91 and 92 of the Constitution (As amended by Act No 2 of 2016). The Court further ordered and directed Government to comply with the spirit of the Constitution by ensuring a People driven process led by an independent body of experts in conducting wide consultations with the people.  It was the Court’s considered position that the initiation of the Constitution amendment process must come from the people and there should be a tangible and visible process of broad-based consultations to support legitimate amendments to the Constitution.

By its Judgment, the Constitutional Court stressed that although the legislature is given the power to make law, when it comes to the Constitution, that power is that of amending and not that of framing the amendments. The People are the owners of the decision to do away with a particular provision and to replace it with another provision. This critical consultative and decision-making stage is what gives legitimacy to the Constitutional amendments which eventually bind to the Constitution and become one with it. This ensures that the Constitution is properly located as the Supreme law of the land with all other laws deriving their authority from it in a normative hierarchy.

Additionally, considering that Zambia is under a Constitutional democracy, the Executive and the Legislature are and can only be agents of the People, but never the Principal. They are empowered to represent the People, in other words, to act for and on People’s behalf and not to replace them. It was the Constitutional Court’s considered view the that Technical Committee on Drafting the Zambian Constitution process should be replicated or something of similar magnitude should be pursued in initiating Constitutional amendments. The Court considered that this is what constitutes what can be understood to be the wide consultative process necessary to alter the existing content of the Constitution.

Further, that in the said process, Government and State actors should be facilitators of a people driven process led by an independent committee of experts which should collect views directly from the people and existing records of submissions by the People. Only after these proposals are put to the People in a structured manner such as through District, Provincial and National level discussions and adoption can they be put through the process in Article 79 of the Constitution.

In light of the Judgment of the Constitutional Court, it follows that the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 which was initiated without the cited mandatory antecedent wide public consultations is a nullity.

However, Government’s position is that it has complied with the Judgment of the Constitution Court by merely constituting a Technical Committee and giving it terms of reference to consult only on the same 13 clauses in Bill 7, and nothing else, plus the mandate to ‘redraft’ the same Bill 7 which is already currently deferred in the National Assembly with the intention that the process must resume on the floor of the House as though no orders nullifying the initial process were made by the Court.

It is our position that this is not compliance, it is stage managing, it is rubber stamping an illegal bill. There must be a fresh initiation, and not continuation, of the Constitution amendment process which must come from the people and there should be a tangible and visible process of broad-based consultations to support legitimate amendments to the Constitution. This not what the Technical Committee is doing and the result of the work of the technical Committee will itself be illegal.

2. Lack of Legal Framework and Transparency
The Committee’s work currently lacks a supporting legal framework to guarantee its operational independence and public accountability. The constitutional articles cited to enable the Committee primarily relate to executive functions, risking undue executive influence over a citizen-driven process.  In addition, the members of the Technical Committee were appointed in their individual and not representative capacity and without any consultation with stakeholder institutions. The Technical Committee members therefore owe their allegiance to no one but the President, who is the appointing Authority, thereby undermining the people’s input in the process.

3. Restrictive Terms of Reference 
The Committee’s Terms of Reference (TOR), raise serious concerns as they restrict citizens’ submissions to constitutional articles unilaterally prescribed by the UPND Government that mirror those in the Bill 7 despite the Constitutional Court declaring the initiation of Bill No. 7 of 2025 a nullity. Citizens and stakeholders were not given any chance to contribute to the terms of reference thereby undermining public trust. Any attempt to base consultations on the discredited Bill effectively resurrects an illegitimate process.  With unilateral and restrictive terms of reference, the citizens are constricted to an election centered agenda and nothing else, robbing them of an opportunity for a genuine, holistic reform of the Supreme for their benefit which must include the expansion of the Bill of rights to include economic and social rights. 

The fact that previously the referendum failed should not mean citizens will never be given a chance to expand the bill of rights. In fact, one of the reasons for the failure of the last referendum was timing, it was tied to the 2016 elections.

4. Formal Withdrawal of the Discredited Bill 7
We note that despite the Constitutional Court declaring the initiation of Bill No. 7 of 2025 a nullity, the Bill remains before the National Assembly. This attempt to base new consultations on the on this Bill effectively entrenches an illegitimate process. As a precondition, for any fresh Constitutional reform, Government must formally withdraw Bill No. 7 from Parliament. It is not only unfair to use citizens to rubber-stamp a pre-conceived political agenda, but this also represents a serious breach of the rule of law, by demonstrating that the Executive does not regard pronouncements of the Constitutional Court.

5. Delinking from the 2026 Electoral Timeline
Constitutional reform must focus on strengthening democratic institutions and expanding the Bill of Rights not serving as a quick fix for electoral purposes. Tying the Committee’s timeline and roadmap to the 2026 General Elections inevitably compromises inclusivity and national consensus.

We don not agree with the narrative that development can only be delivered to the people when constituencies are smaller when constituencies are political units not economic units. Districts can be created immediately, to deal with big constituencies. We do not also believe that it is fair to ask people to submit on whether they want to increase constituencies through delimitation but not availing the public the delimitation report, on which such a critical decision must be based.

Additionally, it is our considered view that the provisions of Bill 7 have the potential to unfairly abdicate the oversight role of the legislature to the Executive. Without an effective oversight role of the legislature over the Executive, rights and liberties of citizens as well the Constitutional integrity cannot be assured.

It is for this reason that the Oasis Forum’s desirable outcome of the dialogue on the Constitutional Reform Process was that:

1. Bill 7 being withdrawn from Parliament.
2. A fresh process supported by legal safeguards is commenced.
3. Such new process be inclusive, not rushed and holistic.

If Government attends to the concerns above, the Oasis Forum would be available to continue with the dialogue process on the Constittutional reform process.

Your Excellency, the Oasis Forum comprising the Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ), the Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ), the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), the Non-Governmental Gender Organizations’ Coordinating Council (NGOCC), and the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB) reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the promotion of Constitutionalism, Rule of Law, and Good Governance for the benefit of all citizens.

Yours Sincerely;


Beauty Katebe
Chairperson
For and on Behalf of Oasis Forum
#zambianwhistleblower #ZWB