THE TRUTH AND MAIN REASON SOME PF CADERS DON’T WANT Bill 7 IS HERE- DR LARRY MWEETWA

THE TRUTH AND MAIN REASON SOME PF CADERS DON’T WANT Bill 7 IS HERE- PLEASE READ TILL THE END

BY DR LARRY MWEETWA

It is both curious and instructive that certain political stakeholders, particularly some Patriotic Front (PF) cadres, appear averse to substantive engagement on Bill 7. Each time they are invited quite reasonably to identify the precise clauses to which they object and to propose alternative wording, a conspicuous silence follows. Instead, the default response is a procedural cliché: “We do not like the process because not all stakeholders were consulted.”

Yet the record speaks for itself. Traditional leaders were consulted. Public notices were disseminated through television and other media platforms. An online portal was established to facilitate nationwide submissions. When pressed to specify which stakeholders were allegedly excluded, the response invariably narrows to two civil society organisations: the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) and the Non-Governmental Organisations’ Coordinating Council (NGOCC).

With respect, these two bodies, while important, do not constitute the entirety of civil society, nor do they monopolise the civic space. LAZ represents a segment of the legal profession; NGOCC advocates largely for women’s interests. Both were aware of the process and had every opportunity to make submissions. Their choice not to participate cannot, in law or logic, invalidate a national consultative process. As the law would put it: volenti non fit injuria one who chooses not to act cannot later claim to have been wronged.

The argument is then swiftly shifted: “The process has been rushed.” Rushed when compared to what benchmark? Zambia’s constitutional history offers useful context. President Kenneth Kaunda amended the Constitution in 1991 an election year. President Frederick Chiluba did the same in 1996 also an election year. President Edgar Chagwa Lungu amended the Constitution in January 2016, barely seven months before general elections. None of these processes were invalidated on the mere ground of timing. One is therefore entitled to ask, with some measured irony: since when did the calendar become a constitutional gatekeeper?

Strikingly, the same voices now opposing Bill 7 were silent when previous amendments were effected under arguably similar or even tighter timelines. The principle of equality before the law demands consistency. Selective outrage is not a constitutional doctrine.

Equally perplexing was a recent statement attributed to the Chairperson of the Oasis Forum, suggesting that a referendum be held to amend even the Bill of Rights. This demand is legally misplaced in the present context. The Bill of Rights is not under amendment in Bill 7. Even former President Lungu, during the 2016 process, did not reopen the Bill of Rights nor did he establish a fresh Law Reform Commission; he relied on existing commission reports. The sudden insistence on a referendum now, where none is constitutionally required, raises legitimate questions of motive rather than method.

The central legal question therefore remains unanswered: Why do some PF cadres and allied voices refuse to make formal submissions specifying which provisions of Bill 7 they oppose? In constitutional practice, objections must be clause-specific, evidence-based, and remedial in nature. Political slogans are no substitute for constitutional drafting.

It bears recalling that Bill 10 was allowed to proceed to Parliament, where it ultimately collapsed on procedural and numerical grounds. Democratic consistency demands that Bill 7 be accorded the same opportunity to rise or fall on the floor of Parliament, not in press conferences, clerical corridors, or NGO boardrooms. As one might quip in civic satire: “A constitution is not amended on Facebook; it is amended in Parliament.”

It is therefore unten_toggle_able that a nation of over 20 million citizens should be held hostage by the positions of two civil society organisations, two clerics, or a handful of political commentators. The constitutional architecture of Zambia vests the final amending authority in Parliament, subject to prescribed procedures not in veto by protest.

For the avoidance of doubt, many citizens have made their submissions in good faith and in accordance with the law. Those submissions are lawful, valid, and must be respected. No individual or group holds a monopoly over constitutional patriotism. As the old legal adage reminds us: “Equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent.”

In sum, if objections to Bill 7 exist, let them be articulated with legal precision, not political anxiety. Let the contest be one of ideas, not of obstruction. And above all, let Parliament do what the Constitution empowers it to do to deliberate, to amend, or to reject in open session, on behalf of the people of Zambia.