OPEN LETTER TO ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
RE: The Unconstitutional Reintroduction of Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7
Dear Honourable Members of Parliament,
I write to convey profound concern, frustration, and disappointment regarding the Government’s decision to reintroduce Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025—in its original form—despite the Constitutional Court having already raised grave concerns about the legality and procedural integrity of the process that produced it.
This letter sets out the legal, democratic, and moral reasons why proceeding with Bill No. 7 in its current form would be unconstitutional, destabilizing, and a violation of your oath as Members of Parliament.
Constitutional and Procedural Concerns
This decision is not merely questionable. It is a direct affront to constitutionalism. A Bill flagged by the Constitutional Court for serious constitutional defects should never return to the House unchanged.
Reintroducing the Bill disregards judicial authority, undermines the separation of powers, and signals a willingness to manipulate constitutional processes for political ends.
The Constitutional Court is not an advisory body; its decisions are binding on all arms of Government under Article 128. When the Court identifies constitutional impropriety, Parliament’s duty is to correct it, not ignore it.
The claim that Standing Order 122 prevents the introduction of a fresh Bill is legally baseless. Standing Orders are internal rules subordinate to the Constitution. They cannot be used as a shield to justify proceeding with a Bill whose foundation the Court has deemed unconstitutional. No procedural convenience can override constitutional supremacy.
Legal Position: Bill No. 7 Has No Validity in Its Current Form
Bill No. 7’s legal status is settled law, not a matter of interpretation or political convenience.
In Munir Zulu & Celestine Mukandila v. The Attorney General, the Constitutional Court held:
“The Constitution amendment process cannot be initiated without the participation of the People of Zambia through wide consultations… [we] come to the inescapable conclusion that this process is unconstitutional.”
The Court further clarified that any legitimate constitutional amendment must:
be founded on broad, nationwide public participation
be initiated by an independent, expert-driven body
comply with Articles 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 61, 90, 91, 92, and 118
respect procedural safeguards protecting the will of the people
By these standards, Bill No. 7 was not merely irregular—it was null.
Article 1(1) of the Constitution is explicit:
“Any act or omission inconsistent with this Constitution is void.”
Therefore, reintroducing Bill No. 7 without curing its constitutional defects is itself unconstitutional. No Standing Order or parliamentary procedure can override the supreme law or sanitize a process already condemned by the Court.
Proceeding with the Bill invites immediate legal challenge, potential nullification, and unmanageable institutional instability. This is not merely a procedural error—it is a constitutional crisis in the making.
Democratic and Moral Imperatives
Democracy rarely collapses in one dramatic event; it erodes quietly when institutions choose convenience over duty.
Honourable Members, you now face a defining moment. What message are you sending to the nation when you revive a Bill already denounced for violating the people’s right to participate? How can you justify voting for a Bill that may itself violate the Constitution—the very document you swore to protect? Do you intend to establish a precedent where judicial warnings are treated as optional?
Supporting Bill No. 7 in its current form risks weakening the doctrine of separation of powers, diminishing judicial authority, endangering the legitimacy of future elections, and eroding public trust in the legislative process.
The Constitution is not an obstacle to bypass—it is the foundation of our Republic.
Call to Action
History does not remember those who remained silent when constitutionalism was under attack. It remembers those who acted.
I urge every Honourable Member to insist that all constitutional defects in Bill No. 7 be remedied transparently, lawfully, and with full public participation before Parliament proceeds further. Stand for constitutional supremacy, not political expediency. Protect the integrity of Parliament and uphold the oath you took to defend the Constitution.
This moment demands courage, integrity, and loyalty—not to party or convenience, but to the Constitution and the people of Zambia.
Stand on the right side of history.
Stand for constitutionalism.
Stand for the people.
Yours faithfully,
Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma
Madame, stop contradicting yourself, what the Court said in its ruling was lack of wide consultation and not Bill 7 itself. That’s why government withdrew the Bill from Parliament so that it tries to meet the conditions of the Court ruling. And it did that by appointing a Technical Committee which went out to meet the people in all the 10 Provinces of Zambia. People were widely consulted and the response was overwhelming. So when you that; “THE CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT PROCESS CANNOT BE INITIATED WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE PEOPLE OF ZAMBIA THROUGH WIDE CONSULTATIONS… [WE] COME TO THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION THAT THIS PROCESS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.” you are totally contradicting yourself because there is no way people can overwhelmingly respond to an issue which they were not widely consulted., it cannot happen. And contrary to what you are saying, you are the people who are killing our democratic values by giving yourselves powers without using constitutional means. Democracy is all about participatory and people driven but none of these apply to you. For example; who elected you or who elected the CSOs and where do you draw your powers from and who vested them in you? Do people really need you or you are just imposing yourselves on them? You need to answer these questions because one day people will challenge you. We were all given the same chance to participate in the Constitution Amendment process, but you people refused. You even wanted to influence others to do like wise but to your big disappointment, the majority of Zambians agreed to participate and overwhelmingly made their submissions to the Technical Committee. So it’s unconstitutional, it’s undemocratic and unfair for you the same people who refused to participate to protest and demand for the discontinuation of the process. What powers are those which put you above everyone? You are making yourselves a criteria which no one asked you to. You want everything first to be liked or approved by you, before it’s allowed to proceed. In democracy that is very dangerous because it renders all our governance institutions useless. What’s the use of electing representatives like MPs if other people can just sit in Lusaka and form an organization like Oasis Forum and start representing us even without our consent? Is that what you can call constitutional and democratic? In my opinion, the same way you wanted the government to consult widely, you also needed to do the same in order to validate or substantiate your claims. At least the government made an effort to consult the people as the Court wanted but you didn’t consult anyone. So even when you claim to be protecting our democracy, your claims don’t hold any water, instead you are actually destroying it. Even when you claim to be genuine representatives of the people, you are defeated because your origins are outside the Constitution. We elect MPs but some individuals and CSOs want to be above the people we elect, that’s unconstitutional and unacceptable. These same CSOs and some individuals just exist in Lusaka, when you go out to the provinces where the Technical Committee went, they are not known. So how do they claim to represent people who don’t know them? And how do you represent people who don’t know you? Zambia is not Lusaka and Lusaka is not Zambia but it’s part of Zambia. So the submissions contained in the Technical Committee Report are more people representative than your views because they came from the people, unlike your views which just came from you. The government consulted people and you didn’t. So who is unconstitutional and undemocratic between you and the government? Certainly, it’s you because the government consults people and you don’t. Zambia is in a hurry to develop and its fast becoming a model in the region and the African continent, so we don’t want any hinderance to the progressive laws that can help us develop our country and promote democracy. The Youths are yearning to be in Parliament so that they can add their voices there but you, you want to stop them, ati Bill 7 will bring witchcraft, is there any sense in such an argument? And you even want to tell tell the International Community, are not just embarrassing yourselves and our country? Our friends in Namibia are advancing, we have the youngest female MP and Cabinet Minister but in Zambia enemies of progress are saying Bill 7 will promote witchcraft, shame. Emma Inamutila Theofelus (born 28 March 1996) is a Namibian Youthful politician, currently serving as the Minister of Information, Communication, and Technology. Theofelus was 23 years old at the time of her appointment in March 2020 and remains the current youngest woman government Minister in both Africa and Namibia. Why are we in Zambia blocking our own youths, our own children?
Please leave Bill 7 to pass, it’s a progressive Bill and it means well for both our country and our democracy. We want to decorate our Parliament with Youths like Emma, young women and men and PLDs so that they can represent other youths and start speaking for themselves. We want our children, our youths to be called Honorables also, in them is where the future of our nation lies, so the earlier we start grooming them the better so that we develop strong and effective leader for our country. Indeed HH is a visionary leader, atwalilile.