By EditorZambia
Democracy is never strengthened by hypocrisy, nor is national progress advanced by actors who mask political bitterness under the cloak of “constitutionalism.”
Yet, this is precisely what Zambia now witnesses as a coalition of civil society organisations, faith-based bodies and the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) bands together to petition the Constitutional Court over the ongoing constitutional review process. 
Their petition claims concern for legality, transparency, and public participation, but their actions reveal something far more troubling, a shared hostility toward President Hakainde Hichilema and the UPND government that threatens to drag Zambia backwards.
At the heart of the petition is an accusation that the government’s move to initiate amendments aligned with the deferred Bill No. 7 of 2025 violates the Munir Zulu judgment and offends constitutional norms.
But beyond the legal jargon and public relations theatrics lies a coordinated front united by one emotion: an unrestrained resentment of President Hichilema and his administration.
What we are witnessing is not a principled defence of constitutionalism but a political tantrum disguised as civic activism.
The petitioners argue that the Technical Committee appointed by President Hichilema is illegitimate, lacking a legal foundation, independence, or adequate time to conduct meaningful national consultations.
They cite limited publicity, restrictive participation mechanisms, and inconsistent procedures.
On paper, these claims sound noble. But in practice, they echo the same predictable talking points that the President’s detractors have recycled since the day he took office.
The substance of their petition is less about constitutional rigour and more about sabotaging anything and everything that bears the President’s fingerprints.
A mature democracy thrives on debate. A fragile democracy, however, suffers when powerful interest groups make it their mission to paralyse governance.
And that is precisely what this petition risks doing.
If democracy has now become a stage for every cluster of politically aggrieved actors to weaponise the courts against national processes, then Zambia is drifting toward ungovernability.
To understand this better, one must scrutinise the coalition behind the petition.
Though they present themselves as guardians of constitutional integrity, the ideological diversity within this alliance is suspiciously absent.
These organisations, usually divided on almost everything, have suddenly found perfect harmony. They speak as one, they issue statements as one, and they pursue legal action as one.
Such unity would ordinarily be celebrated, but here it raises eyebrows. Their synchrony does not arise from shared love for constitutionalism but from a mutual dislike of the head of state and his party. The petition is simply the latest battlefield for their political grievances.
When civil society, faith bodies, and professional organisations collapse into a political echo chamber, democracy becomes distorted.
Criticism is healthy. Petitioning is a right. But when these tools are deployed not out of genuine concern but out of bitterness, they become weapons of obstruction.
Let us be honest: these groups have not opposed the constitutional review because it is flawed. They oppose it because it is initiated by President Hichilema.
They reject the Technical Committee not because it is inadequate, but because it is appointed by a President they have demonised since day one.
They invoke the Munir Zulu judgment not because it is sacrosanct, but because it provides a convenient shield for political resistance.
A democracy can not survive if hatred becomes a legitimate political strategy. When opponents of a sitting government choose perpetual antagonism over constructive engagement, national institutions suffer.
Zambia’s Constitution can not evolve through paralysis. No constitutional review process anywhere in the world has ever been universally praised or uniformly accepted. Perfection is unattainable.
What matters is a willingness to improve the nation’s supreme law through dialogue, not through unyielding hostility.
Yet, dialogue is precisely what the petitioners reject. Instead of engaging with the Technical Committee, submitting alternative proposals, or participating in public forums, they have chosen to derail the process entirely.
They insist the review be “people-driven,” but they are the very ones discouraging the people from participating. They complain of insufficient time, but they are busy using that time to campaign against the process.
They accuse the government of railroading the Constitution, yet they themselves are railroading public opinion to suit their political narrative.
This contradiction exposes their motives. Their problem is not with the process; their problem is with the presidency. This is why their petition is retrogressive. It does not move Zambia forward. It pulls the country into the quicksand of perpetual political grudge fights.
If every national programme is treated as illegitimate simply because it originates from the current administration, how can Zambia ever progress?
If every reform triggers a courtroom war, how can laws evolve? If every government initiative is drowned in a sea of hostility, how can citizens ever hope for stability?
The petitioners’ aggression signals a deeper danger: the normalisation of political hatred. Hatred breeds paralysis. Paralysis breeds dysfunction. And dysfunction leads to ungovernability.
What makes this even more troubling is the moral authority these groups often wield. Civil society and faith-based organisations command public trust. When they misuse that trust to fuel political grudges, they risk destabilising the very democracy they claim to defend.
They are setting a precedent where political actors can simply assemble under the banner of “constitutional protection” whenever they want to attack the government, regardless of the legitimacy of their claims.
Zambia deserves better.
The constitutional review process is not perfect. No one claims it is. But its imperfections are not grounds for its destruction. Instead of scorched-earth tactics, the petitioners could have opted for constructive participation.
Instead of weaponising courts, they could have strengthened public consultation. Instead of perpetuating hostility, they could have embraced genuine national dialogue.
But they chose hatred, and hatred has never built a nation.
If this is what democracy is becoming, where grudges dictate national direction, then Zambia stands on the threshold of becoming ungovernable. Not because the government has failed, but because its loudest critics have become addicted to antagonism.
The petitioners have a right to disagree. They do not have a right to sabotage.
Zambia’s progress can not be held hostage to those who can not stand the idea of the nation moving forward under the leadership of a president they passionately despise.
The Constitution belongs to the people, yes, but the people deserve reform, not relentless obstruction masquerading as activism.
The country must reject politics rooted in hatred. Because a democracy driven by bitterness is not a democracy at all. It is simply chaos dressed in legal robes.
