Withdraw Bill 7: When Trust is Broken, even Good Intentions Cannot Save a Bad Process
A Weighing In By Rev Walter Mwambazi
So, this morning I learned via Ichengelo Radio that the Catholic Church shall be joining all “well meaning” citizens for a peaceful protest against the current constitutional amendment process dubbed “Bill 7” on the 28th November and shall be marching to State House to probably present their position.
This isn’t good and where I have been generally silent, I have been compelled to weigh in and share my position—withdraw the Bill.
I’ve watched the push for Bill 7 with a heavy heart. On paper, it looks tidy: expand parliamentary seats, introduce proportional representation, harmonize terms, and tweak by-election and nomination procedures. These sound technical and even progressive. But constitutional reform isn’t just about the content – it’s about the spirit, the process, and the trust that binds a nation to its laws. And that trust has been squandered in this case. Allow me to explain.
What Bill 7 seeks to change
Bill 7 proposes a limited set of amendments branded as “non-contentious.” The headline items include:
Expansion of seats: Increasing the number of elected Members of Parliament, tied to recent constituency delimitation exercises.
Proportional representation: Introducing a mixed-member system aimed at improving representation for women, youth, and persons with disabilities (similar to DEI – which I don’t subscribe to)
Nomination rules: Clarifying or revising how candidates can re-file nominations after resignations.
By-election procedures: Adjusting the mechanics of by-elections to align with other electoral processes.
Nominated MPs: Revisiting the number and conditions of nominated Members of Parliament.
Term harmonization: Aligning the tenure of Parliament with local councils for administrative consistency.
Individually, none of these scream crisis. Together, however, they demand a process that is credible, slow enough to listen, and broad enough to include the country’s moral and civic conscience.
Why the process has lost legitimacy
Several leading institutions – our churches, the Law Association, and civil society bodies – have stepped back, refusing to participate in the government’s committee tasked with gathering submissions nationwide. Their refusal isn’t apathy; it’s protest. It’s a statement that the process is not worthy of the Constitution it seeks to touch.
Law Association of Zambia (LAZ)
Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ)
Evangelical Fellowship of Zambia (EFZ)
Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops (ZCCB)
Civil Society Constitution Agenda (CiSCA)
Allied NGOs, including ActionAid Zambia
Oasis Forum
When those who traditionally safeguard the public interest won’t lend their legitimacy, the rest of us should pause. The committee’s mandate and tempo have not inspired confidence, and the optics are unmistakable: this is a process many believe is designed to deliver a result, not discover a consensus.
The core objections – and why they matter
Critics have offered reasons that go beyond political preference. They strike at the ethics of reform:
Predetermined outcome: Many believe the path is scripted, and public input is decorative rather than decisive.
Rushed and narrow consultation: Timelines and formats make meaningful engagement difficult for ordinary citizens and serious stakeholders. (strongly agree)
Avoidance of deeper reforms: Labeling changes as “non-contentious” sidesteps structural issues the public has repeatedly raised.
Politicization risk: The impression is that amendments are timed and trimmed to serve electoral strategy rather than national interest.
Historical déjà vu: The shadow of the failed Bill 10 looms large – partisan, opaque, and ultimately rejected by citizens and Parliament alike.
These aren’t minor quibbles. They’re fault lines that tell us the foundation is compromised.
The Bill 10 parallel we cannot ignore
Unfortunately, we’ve been here before. Bill 10 failed because it didn’t earn trust. It was seen as elite-driven rather than people-driven, more interested in outcomes than in listening. Bill 7 may be narrower in scope, but it has inherited the same deficit: a lack of legitimacy rooted in process. If the people feel unheard, if civil society feels sidelined, if the churches feel disrespected – then even good ideas are viewed with suspicion.
Constitution-making is not a technical project; it is a covenant. Covenants collapse when trust is broken.
My Position: Withdraw Bill 7
Trust is the most important currency in constitutional reform. Once it’s spent carelessly, the market closes – ideas, even good ones, cannot find buyers. The perception around Bill 7 is now overwhelmingly negative. Whether through missteps, poor communication, or politicized framing, the government has lost the confidence required to carry such an exercise forward.
My conclusion is clear: Bill 7 should be withdrawn.
Withdrawal is not defeat; it can be an act of wisdom. It can clear the air, reset the relationship with citizens, and open the door to a genuinely inclusive process – one that begins with listening, proceeds with transparency, and ends with a document that we can all own.
If the previous paragraph shall be adopted, whoever will raise this again can utilize my proposal on what a credible path would look like as outlined below.
If we truly want reform, we must rebuild TRUST first. Here’s how that happens.
✍ Reset the mandate: Define the reform scope with citizens, not just cabinet. Begin with a white paper and a consultation calendar.
✍ Independent facilitation: Establish a broadly trusted, multi-stakeholder commission with balanced representation from churches, LAZ, academia, civil society, youth, and persons with disabilities.
✍ Public-first engagement: Host accessible provincial forums, publish minutes and draft changes openly, and allow time for critique and revision.
Note: This is on right now, but they skipped the first two and so lost credibility from the start. Nothing will work if credibility is lost.
✍ Transparent timelines: Share a realistic roadmap and stick to it; avoid pre-election compression that breeds suspicion.
✍ Safeguard against politicization: Require cross-party and civil society consensus thresholds on key provisions before they even reach Parliament.
These steps are not cosmetic. They rebuild the covenant by restoring voice, dignity, and agency to the people.
The call beyond politics
This isn’t about who wins in 2026. It’s about who we are as Zambians. Constitutional reform should deepen our unity, not fracture it; amplify our representation, not exploit it; and strengthen our democracy, not game it. If the process cannot command trust, it should not proceed.
Withdraw Bill 7. Then start again—slowly, humbly, and together.