CIVICUS discusses recent constitutional changes in Zambia with Gideon Musonda, Executive Director of the Advocates for Democratic Governance Foundation, a Zambian civil society organisation.

On 15 December, Zambia’s parliament passed Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7, increasing the number of lawmakers and altering electoral rules just months before the 2026 election. The government revived the bill in November despite strong civil society opposition and a Constitutional Court ruling that deemed an earlier attempt to pass it unconstitutional due to inadequate consultation. The government rushed through an almost identical version, sidelining the court’s concerns and limiting space for public dissent.

Why have the constitutional changes raised concerns?

Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 proposes major changes to Zambia’s constitutional and electoral framework, particularly in relation to elections and the functioning of parliament. As civil society, we are not opposed to constitutional reform in principle. We have long advocated for reforms to improve governance and representation. Our concerns focus on how and when this bill was passed, and whose interests it ultimately serves.

Parliament passed the bill in mid-December, just months before the 2026 general election, despite strong resistance from civil society groups, church bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders. The timing alone raises red flags. Historically, in Zambia and across the region, constitutional changes rushed through in an election period tend to be driven by political expediency rather than the public interest.

Beyond that, the bill significantly expands parliament, increasing the number of constituency-based seats from 156 to over 211, alongside additional nominated and proportional representation seats. At a time when the economy is struggling, when people are facing poverty, energy shortages and underfunded social services, it’s extremely concerning that public resources are being redirected towards expanding political institutions instead of addressing urgent socio-economic needs.

Which proposed changes are most troubling?

Several provisions pose serious risks to democratic governance. One major concern is the proposal to allow members of Parliament (MPs) to remain in office until the day before an election, instead of parliament dissolving 90 days before. This creates an uneven playing field, as incumbents would continue to enjoy access to institutional visibility, state resources and vehicles while on the campaign trail.

Another contentious issue is the introduction of proportional representation seats for people with disabilities, women and young people. While we support inclusive representation, the numbers proposed are simply inadequate. Twelve seats for young people and three for people with disabilities won’t meaningfully address exclusion. At the same time, these additions significantly expand parliament, increasing costs when the economy cannot sustain them.

We were also very concerned by proposals to remove by-elections and allow political parties to nominate replacements when seats fall vacant. This directly undermines voters’ right to choose their representatives. Additional proposals, such as increasing the number of presidentially nominated MPs and allowing MPs to sit on local councils, threaten the separation of powers and weaken accountability mechanisms, particularly parliament’s oversight role over local government.

Why do you believe the reform process was flawed?

In 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled that Bill No. 7 was unconstitutional because it had been introduced without adequate public consultation, and constitutional changes must be citizen-driven and grounded in broad, inclusive participation.

Following the court ruling, the government appointed a technical committee to conduct consultations. However, from our perspective, this process did not meet the required standards. Consultations were limited mainly to provincial centres, relied heavily on virtual platforms that many rural and other excluded communities cannot access and restricted people to commenting only on issues already contained in the bill rather than freely propose changes they wanted to see.

What happened after the consultations was even more concerning. Instead of introducing a new bill informed by the committee’s report, the government revived the bill that had been rejected by the court, making only minor adjustments during parliamentary proceedings. This was a clear circumvention of the court’s ruling and the consultation process, and it set a dangerous precedent for future constitutional manipulation.

What happened to planned protests?

There was serious consideration of public protests, and civil society coalitions such as the Oasis Forum — a coalition of church bodies, civil society organisations and professional associations — formally notified the police of their intention to demonstrate peacefully. Our current legal framework requires notification rather than permission to hold protests. However, the police refused to facilitate protests, and senior political figures, including President Hakainde Hichilema, publicly discouraged demonstrations, citing risks of instability.

Oasis Forum faced implicit threats, including suggestions that counter-protests would mobilise, raising genuine concerns about safety. In this environment, civil society leaders concluded that safety could not be guaranteed and the protests were called off. This doesn’t mean public opposition disappeared: it means the space for peaceful assembly has become increasingly constrained.

Instead, Oasis Forum sought dialogue with President Hichilema, and together with other like-minded organisations such as Advocates for Democratic Governance Foundation appeared before parliamentary committees to formally place our objections on record.

These experiences reflect a broader challenge: while civic rights exist on paper, exercising them often comes with intimidation, selective enforcement and political pressure.

What should happen now, and what would a legitimate constitutional reform process look like?

Our immediate call is for President Hichilema to withhold assent and return Bill No. 7 to parliament for reconsideration. Many of us are also calling for constitutional changes to be postponed until after the 2026 election, when the political temperature and the risk of manipulation will be lower. There are precedents where sustained pressure has led to bills being sent back for broader consultation.

A legitimate reform process must be people-driven from the start. Citizens, not the executive, must define the agenda. Consultations must go beyond provincial centres and virtual platforms, reaching districts, rural communities and other excluded groups. There must be sectoral engagements with labour unions, people with disabilities, professional associations, traditional leaders, women and young people.

Validation is equally important. People must be able to confirm that their views are accurately reflected before any bill is drafted. Parliament’s role should be to facilitate enactment, not to rewrite people’s submissions. Only a process built on inclusion, public ownership and transparency can produce legitimate and sustainable constitutional changes that will strengthen democracy rather than weaken it.