….When Actions Contradict Words…
The Editor Zambia
Why is the Non-Governmental Gender Organisations’ Coordinating Council (NGOCC) doing a disservice to its general membership and women at large in the Republic of Zambia? 
Why has the NGOCC prioritised politicking over speaking for women who are crying out for inclusivity in national affairs?
Is this organisation truly serving the interests of its members and the Zambian people, or is it merely focused on securing donor funding for personal gain?
Recently, the NGOCC declined to participate in the ongoing public consultations conducted by the Technical Committee on Constitutional Amendments, citing a lack of legitimacy, inclusiveness, and transparency in the process.
NGOCC Board Chairperson Beauty Katebe said the current constitutional review process is a continuation of the widely rejected Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025.
Earlier, before President Hakainde Hichilema instructed the Minister of Justice to defer the Bill, citing the need for more comprehensive engagement with stakeholders such as church bodies and civil society organisations, the NGOCC had called for broader consultation, which the government has since done.
On June 5, 2025, the NGOCC withdrew its support for Bill 7, saying the process was not transparent, consultative, and inclusive.
The women movement further called on the government to pause and reconfigure the amendment process to be inclusive and consultative.
Why has NGOCC decided to contradict its own stance by refusing to participate in the consultations that they previously recommended to the government? Isn’t their decision an attempt to portray the UPND administration as being resistant to public engagement?
NGOCC, your members in Mambwe are asking, what has government done wrong to heed to your advice to pause and engage in more consultative process for you to boycott?
Madam Beauty Katebe, your members in Lukulu are asking, why didn’t you involve them in arriving at the decisions to boycott?
Your members in Lundazi are asking, whose interest are you serving in denying to take part in a process that aims to bring social services closer to the people?
Are we going to make progress on this process after 61 years of failing to address simple issues of inclusion and decentralisation?
Zambia has made several attempts to elaborate a democratic constitution that promotes good governance, inclusiveness, citizen participation, accountability, and the separation of powers between the three arms of government – parliament, the judiciary, and the executive.
Success has been elusive, largely because the process is always politicised and used as a fundraising tool for some individuals.
There has also been a monopoly of wisdom among certain individuals who believe it’s only they who should spearhead the constitutional-making process.”
On 2nd October, 2025, President Hakainde Hichilema, in exercise of the powers vested in him pursuant to Article 92(1), 92(2)(f) and 92(2)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia, appointed 25 members to the Technical Committee to widely consult the People and draft amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Zambia.
This decision followed a public outcry where stakeholders called for further consultation on the amendments of the national document.
However, a few days after this progressive action, a consortium of selected civil society organisations criticised the President, saying the appointment of the technical committee was flawed and illegal.
University of Zambia -UNZA- Law Lecturer, O’brian Kaaba, argued that the Technical Committee on Amendments to the Constitution is legally constituted.
Dr. Kaaba said the appointment of a Technical Committee is not unprecedented, citing the Annel Silungwe Committee under the late President Michael Sata, which operated under constitutional executive authority similar to Article 92.
Contrary to assertions by former LAZ president Linda Kasonde, Dr. Kaaba argued that constituting such a body under the Inquiries Act would not offer any superior legal foundation, as commissions under that Act equally only submit recommendations that the Government may or may not adopt.
