WHY BILL 7 IS BAD
By Hastings Khoji Chishete – MA Political Science, MBA, MPH
What if a constitutional change promising greater representation actually tightens the grip of those already in power? Zambia’s proposed Bill 7 aims to reshape our democracy—but beneath its pledge of inclusivity lies a real risk of entrenching executive dominance and silencing local voices.
What is Bill 7
Bill 7 is a proposal to change Zambia’s constitution, mainly focusing on elections and parliament. The Constitutional Court’s struck down Bill 7 on June 27, 2025, based on the fundamental principle of public participation but the UPND leadership decided to resurrect it, The main changes it suggests are:
1. Increasing the number of local representatives in parliament from 156 to 211.
2. revise the electoral system for election to the National Assembly to provide for a mixed-member proportional representation electoral system to guarantee the representation of women, youths and persons with disabilities; Changing the rules for by-elections, candidate nominations, and filling empty seats.
3. Setting a standard five-year term for both members of parliament and local councilors.
4. Requiring government ministers to step down from their ministerial roles 90 days before an election if they want to run.
5. Allowing mayors and council chairs to serve more than two terms.
6. Letting members of parliament also be part of local council meetings.
7. Updating the legal definitions of terms like “child,” “adult,” and “youth.”
The bill’s stated purpose is to modernize and democratize the electoral system through MMPR, to enhance representation of marginalized groups such as women, youth, and persons with disabilities, to implement delimitation recommendations by increasing constituency seats, to harmonize and stabilize governance terms via five-year unified terms for Parliament and councils, and to clarify and streamline electoral and vacancy procedures.
The underlying intent appears to be increasing political inclusivity and diversity in the National Assembly, reducing electoral disruptions by limiting by-elections before general elections, strengthening executive continuity by allowing ministers to remain in office until 90 days before an election, and expanding local governance integration by including MPs in councils.
Zambia political system and why Bill 7 is bad for it
Zambia political system is unicameral, and there is no true separation of power among the three arms of government. Reason being that the President is the head of state and government, and they appoint the Cabinet (ministers) from the elected MPs in the National Assembly. This fusion means there is an overlap between the executive and legislature, the same individuals who seat in cabinet also takes the front seats in parliament. This cconcentrate’s power in the president, offering fewer checks on the executive, especially when the ruling party commands a strong parliamentary majority.
In a unicameral system like Zambia where the President appoints the cabinet from Parliament, several amendments raise concerns:
• Increased Seats (211 constituency MPs): Could lead to gerrymandering, where politicians draw voting regional maps in unfair, twisted shapes to rig elections in their own party’s favour and disproportionate executive influence over a larger, more fragmented Assembly.
• The MMPR System: While promoting diversity, may weaken direct accountability of MPs to constituencies, as some are appointed via party lists with possible influence from powerful leaders in the party.
• Removing mayoral term limits means the same person can stay in power indefinitely, which stops new leaders with fresh ideas from emerging and weakens local democracy.
• MPs in Councils: Blurs lines between national and local governance, potentially centralizing power and undermining local autonomy.
• 90-Day Ministerial Vacancy: May allow outgoing ministers to influence elections while in office.
• Reduced By-Elections: While this saves money, it takes the power to choose a representative away from the voters and gives it to the party leaders
Overall Risk: The reforms if done will strengthen the ruling party’s grip on both national and local governance, reducing checks and balances in a system already prone to executive dominance. Making the president even more powerful and controlling.
Our constitution is the bedrock of our nation’s future—it should empower the people, not just the powerful. Don’t let this moment pass in silence. Get informed, join the debate, and demand clarity from your representatives. Share your views, attend public consultations, and insist on amendments that truly protect democracy, diversity, and local accountability. Your voice matters use it now before the rules are rewritten.
Did you submit your objection based on your assumptions and reading beyond what is apparent? I have a question or two. The legal issue of 14 days was not settled and what will happen again if all the lawyers will do is frustrate the court proceedings until 14 days lapses? What again will happen if HH refuses to step aside after the petition? I am there you will notice since him is supposed to be held to a different very very high standard. Lastly, do you realise that the elections as we stand today, can go on longer than the prescribed 5 years? All what each or any one of the many presidential candidates will be doing, I am speculating since you brought up the speculation standard to make decisions, is to quit even a day before and the whole thing would have to be postponed for another 90 days. This can go on and on and that would be perfectly under the current constitution. Equally, what we have are very bad very bad laws.