Why Is It So Hard To Do the Right Thing When One Is In Power? An Open Letter to President Hakainde Hichilema On Why Delimitation Does Not Require Constitutional Amendment

Why Is It So Hard To Do the Right Thing When One Is In Power? An Open Letter to President Hakainde Hichilema On Why Delimitation Does Not Require Constitutional Amendment

Your Excellency,

I write this letter as a concerned citizen and advocate for constitutional clarity and responsible leadership. Recently, I heard your public statement suggesting that a constitutional amendment is a constitutional requirement every ten years, particularly in relation to delimitation. You stated that the Constitution must be reviewed every ten years, implying that such a review must lead to amendments.

With due respect, Mr. President, that assertion is incorrect, and it is irresponsible to mislead the public on such a critical constitutional matter.

Let us be clear: there is no provision in the Constitution of Zambia that mandates constitutional amendments every ten years. Amendments to the Constitution are neither automatic nor triggered by the passage of time. They can only be made when necessary and through a well-defined, consultative, and lawful process, as stipulated under Article 79 of the Constitution.

What the Constitution does require every ten years is delimitation, not amendment.

According to Article 58(5) of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act, 2016:

> “The Electoral Commission of Zambia shall review the names and boundaries of constituencies and wards at intervals of not more than ten years.”

This provision gives the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) the authority and duty to periodically review and, if necessary, redraw electoral boundaries. This process, known as delimitation, ensures fair and equitable representation based on population changes and demographic shifts.

Importantly, delimitation does not require a constitutional amendment. The ECZ already has the legal mandate to carry out this process within the existing constitutional framework.

A constitutional amendment would only become necessary if, for example, Parliament seeks to change a fixed constitutional figure, such as Article 68(2), which currently caps the number of elected Members of Parliament at 156. Even then, an amendment is not automatic. It must follow the strict legal process outlined in Article 79.

Understanding Article 79: How Constitutional Amendments Work

Under Article 79 of the Constitution, two categories of provisions are treated differently when it comes to amendments:

1. Entrenched provisions
These include Part I (General Provisions), Part III (Bill of Rights), and Article 79 itself.

To amend any of these, the Constitution requires:

A two-thirds majority vote of all Members of Parliament

A national referendum, in which:

At least 50 percent of eligible voters must participate

At least 50 percent of the valid votes cast must be in favour of the amendment

2. Non-entrenched provisions
All other parts of the Constitution can be amended with:

A two-thirds majority in Parliament only, with no referendum required

This two-tiered process ensures that the most foundational elements of our democracy, such as the Bill of Rights and the core structure of government, are protected from casual or politically driven amendments. These provisions require broad public consensus and direct approval from the Zambian people.

The Problem with Bill No. 7

Mr. President, while you are fully entitled to propose constitutional amendments as part of your leadership agenda, this must be done honestly, transparently, and in a manner that respects the will of the people. Unfortunately, your insistence on pushing forward Bill No. 7 ignores the clearly stated opposition from nearly all major national stakeholders.

The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), church mother bodies, civil society organizations (CSOs), opposition political parties, the Constitutional Court, and many patriotic citizens have all called for Bill No. 7 to be not just deferred but withdrawn entirely.

So the question remains: Why have you continued to insist on this bill, which does not have the support or confidence of the majority of relevant stakeholders? Why do you find it so hard to do the right thing, Mr President?

Many have rightly proposed that the appropriate time to restart any constitutional reform process is after the 2026 general elections. This would allow for proper consultation, a more stable political environment, and genuine national consensus. So again, why the rush?

Call to Leadership

If you truly mean well for Zambia, Mr. President, I urge you to withdraw Bill No. 7. The proposed amendments do not address the urgent needs of the people. Instead, they appear designed to advantage your party ahead of 2026 and to undermine institutional checks and balances.

Zambia belongs to all of us, not to one government, not to one party, and certainly not to a temporary parliamentary majority. If constitutional reform is to take place, it must be inclusive, honest, and guided by the national interest, not partisan expediency.

I call on you, Mr. President, to correct the record on delimitation, respect the will of the people, and recommit yourself to the democratic values of transparency, accountability, and unity.

Let us protect the Constitution not only with our words but with truth, humility, and integrity.

Respectfully,
Thandiwe Ketiš Ngoma
Concerned Citizen of the Republic of Zambia