Oasis Forum’s Exit from Court Was a Strategic Failure

🇿🇲 READER OPINION | Oasis Forum’s Exit from Court Was a Strategic Failure

By Haggai Muzeya

The Oasis Forum’s decision to withdraw its petition from the Constitutional Court challenging the legality of Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 is hardly surprising. What is striking is not the withdrawal itself, but how predictable its ineffectiveness had already become.

The Oasis Forum, comprising the Law Association of Zambia, selected civil society organisations, and church mother bodies, missed a critical strategic opportunity to influence the constitutional reform process in a meaningful way. By the time the petition was withdrawn, the political outcome had already been sealed.

Rather than engaging constructively at decisive stages, the Forum chose to boycott both the Mushabati Technical Committee and the Parliamentary Select Committee. These were the two principal platforms where substantive compromises could have been negotiated, tested, and secured. Walking away from these processes was a political miscalculation.

Although LAZ submitted written proposals, it declined to defend them orally when its president, Lungisani Zulu, appeared before the Parliamentary Select Committee. That decision was tactically unsound. Constitutional reform is not won through paperwork alone. It is won through engagement, persuasion, and presence. The refusal to orally advance proposals conveyed detachment and, to some observers, arrogance.

The boycott created a vacuum. That vacuum was quickly filled by individual Patriotic Front and independent Members of Parliament, whose submissions influenced key amendments. These included the retention of by-elections and adjustments to provisions on parliamentary dissolution and the Office of the Secretary to the Cabinet. These concessions made the Bill more palatable to Parliament and helped secure overwhelming two-thirds majorities at both Second and Third Reading stages.

As a result, the Oasis Forum’s long-standing influence over constitutional reform was significantly weakened. By the time President Hakainde Hichilema assented to the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No. 13 of 2025, the Forum had already been politically sidelined.

Looking ahead, the implications are clear. Future and potentially more contentious constitutional amendments are likely to proceed with little or no input from the Oasis Forum. A UPND government strengthened by parliamentary numbers after the 2026 general elections, and further bolstered by anticipated gains from the 40 reserved seats for women, youth, and persons with disabilities, will have less incentive to re-engage actors who opted out when engagement mattered most.

Responsibility for this marginalisation lies squarely with the Oasis Forum itself. Constitutional influence is not preserved through boycotts and court filings alone. It is sustained through consistent participation in the political process.

⬆️ Haggai Muzeya is a Political historian based in Kitwe.

© The People’s Brief | Reader Opinion