The “Highest Ever” Illusion: How the 11,860 Submissions Claim Weakens Zambia’s Constitutional Reform
The legitimacy of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 rests on one key claim repeated by the Technical Committee (B7TC): that it received 11,860 public submissions, supposedly the “highest ever” in Zambia’s history of constitutional review.
But when this claim is examined closely, against historical records, logistics, and legal requirements, it collapses. What emerges is not a story of national participation, but a warning sign of a weak process built on shaky evidence. If the foundation of a constitutional amendment is false or exaggerated, then the entire reform risks losing its moral and legal authority.
The B7TC stated publicly that their 11,860 submissions represent the highest number ever recorded in a Zambian constitutional review process.
This claim is false.
The benchmark for citizen participation is still the Mung’omba Constitutional Review Commission (CRC). That process recorded 12,569 submissions, more than what the B7TC reported.
This difference is not minor. It exposes a major factual error in the B7TC’s narrative. If the committee cannot get its basic numbers right, how can the nation trust the integrity of the entire consultation process?
A constitutional amendment must be built on truth, not inflated statistics. The “highest ever” claim was not just inaccurate, it is misleading.
Even if the figure of 11,860 were accepted at face value, the logistics behind it do not make sense.
The Mung’omba CRC conducted its outreach for 14 months, moving from community to community across all 150 constituencies, speaking directly with citizens in their homes, villages, and districts. That long, inclusive process resulted in 12,569 submissions.
The B7TC under UPND government, by contrast, had about two months and held consultations largely in a few provincial centers, mostly urban, highly accessible areas.
It is extremely difficult to believe that a short, limited, centrally located exercise could gather almost the same number of submissions as a nationwide, door-to-door, year-long effort.
The numbers feel more like a target than a reflection of real public participation. This creates the impression that the process was rushed, restricted, and detached from ordinary citizens, especially those in rural and remote areas.
The Constitutional Court has already ruled on Bill 7, stating clearly that there had been no “wide public consultation” as required under Article 79 of the Constitution.
This is serious.
It means the judiciary, the highest guardian of constitutional compliance, has officially recognized that the previous consultation failed the legal test.
Yet the current amendments rely on the same problematic foundation. If the base process was flawed, then any reform derived from it remains contaminated by that flaw.
If the B7TC wants public trust, it must immediately publish a full, verifiable breakdown of the 11,860 submissions. This must clearly separate: Oral submissions given in person, Original written submissions and Duplicated or mass-produced entries, including digital templates or coordinated group submissions
Only then can the nation determine whether these numbers represent real voices or simply inflated figures.
Without transparency, the figure remains untrustworthy and unusable.
Zambia deserves a constitution rooted in truth, transparency, and genuine citizen involvement, not in numbers that crumble under basic scrutiny. The 11,860 figure is not proof of national consensus. It is a warning sign. A constitutional reform process must not rely on shaky statistics, rushed consultations, or misleading claims.
If the foundation of Bill No. 7 is weak, then the entire structure is unstable.
Zambia should never accept a Constitution built on the “highest ever” illusion. It must demand honesty, clarity, and real participation, nothing less.
The Struggle Continues
Sensio Banda
Former Member of Parliament
Kasenengwa Constituency
Eastern Province
This is problem with some people is that they don’t understand that we are now living in a new age, the old one they were used to. Unfortunately, they still think it should take the same amount of time it took years back to perform certain tasks. News flash, technology now allows things to be done at lightning speed. In this new age, technologies like AI can collect and analyse billions of data per second, but it seems some people are still living old times where letters were used to communicate with people, and it took weeks for the recipients to receive them.
The problem with some people is that they don’t understand that we are now living in a new age, NOT the old one they were used to. Unfortunately, they still think it should take the same amount of time it took years back to perform certain tasks. News flash, technology now allows things to be done at lightning speed. In this new age, technologies like AI can collect and analyse billions of data per second, but it seems some people are still living in old times where letters were used to communicate with people, and it took weeks for the recipients to receive them. I would advise these people to adapt to the new way of doing things, otherwise, they will soon become obsolete.