By EditorZambia
Allegations that the government has “unleashed stooges” to force the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) out of the Oasis Forum are not only misleading—they are detached from the reality unfolding within the association itself.
A closer look at the issues reveals a far more organic, member-driven pushback against what many lawyers perceive as unprecedented levels of political partisanship under the current LAZ president, Lungisani Zulu. 
For the first time since the creation of the Oasis Forum, a civil society coalition historically admired for non-partisanship, LAZ finds itself accused by its own members of drifting sharply into political advocacy.
It is this internal concern—not any directive from State House—that has triggered the petition calling for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM).
The narrative that the government is orchestrating the petition collapses the moment one examines the facts on the ground.
Organic Petition, Real Concerns
The petition submitted by LAZ members—Gary Davies Chibangula, Mungole Kwalela, and Eric Sakala—is grounded in the Law Association of Zambia (General Rules) 1996, specifically Section 8(3), which empowers members to call for an EGM.
This avenue has existed for decades, yet rarely has it been used with such urgency.
Why now? Because, according to the petitioners and many within the legal fraternity, LAZ has crossed a line it has historically avoided: the line between legal advocacy and open partisanship.
The petitioners argue that the association’s continued affiliation with the Oasis Forum has dragged LAZ into overt political messaging, particularly messaging seen to be pushing regime-change rhetoric ahead of the 2026 general elections.Importantly, this criticism is coming from LAZ members themselves, not the government.
It is highly flawed thinking to assume that every dissenting voice within LAZ must somehow be an agent of government.
Zambians are capable of independent thought, and LAZ members are more than capable of defending the ethical foundations of their own profession.
A President Under Scrutiny
Central to the controversy is LAZ president Lungisani Zulu, whose public conduct has raised discomfort among senior and junior legal practitioners alike.
This is understandable because never in the history of LAZ’s participation in the Oasis Forum has the association’s leadership been perceived as openly partisan—until now.
Statements issued under Zulu’s name on major constitutional questions, governance commentary, and political events have often been released without full consultation of the membership.
This is precisely what the petitioners point out: LAZ’s president has been issuing sweeping political pronouncements under the association’s banner without the robust internal process historically respected by past leadership.
The argument is not that LAZ should be silent—far from it. LAZ must speak on constitutional matters, rule of law, and human rights. But members argue that it must do so with intellectual restraint, institutional discipline, and political neutrality.
These are qualities the petitioners believe are rapidly eroding.
Partisanship, Not Government Pressure, Triggered the Backlash
The Oasis Forum was once a respected bulwark of civic engagement, particularly during constitutional crises.
But in recent years, it has increasingly been perceived as aligning with specific political actors and narratives.
For LAZ, whose members come from diverse political views and professional backgrounds, this affiliation now poses a reputational risk.
LAZ can not afford to be seen as a partisan megaphone.
The government does not need to instruct anyone to see the danger in this.
Any lawyer, any observer, or even any citizen can observe the supersonic speed at which LAZ is drifting from its core mandate into overt political activism.
One does not need a law degree to notice this shift.
It is therefore intellectually irresponsible to dismiss the petitioning members as pawns or stooges.
They are professionals safeguarding their association.
They are lawyers demanding adherence to internal processes.
They are Zambians who expect LAZ to rise above politics, not sink into it.
What the Petition Actually Seeks
Contrary to social-media sensationalism, the petition is neither a coup nor a politically orchestrated ambush. It seeks two simple, democratic outcomes: A debate and vote on LAZ’s continued membership in the Oasis Forum, whose current posture many perceive as partisan.
An examination of the president’s unilateral handling of constitutional matters and public statements, which members argue were made without broad consultation.
The petitioners have further demanded that voting be conducted by poll—an additional safeguard for transparency.
In other words, this is internal housekeeping, nothing more.
Let LAZ Members Speak
It is high time those pushing the government-interference narrative allowed LAZ members to speak for themselves.
If the petition truly lacked legitimacy, the Council of LAZ would have dismissed it outright.
Instead, it is being processed in accordance with LAZ rules. The petitioners are not operating in secrecy or under political instruction.
Their signatures are public.
Their reasoning is public. Their demands fall squarely within the association’s constitution.
The attempt to portray LAZ members as government stooges is an insult not only to the petitioners but to every lawyer in Zambia who believes in professional integrity.
The real issue is not government interference. The real issue is LAZ’s increasing partisanship under its current leadership, its alignment with a politicised Oasis Forum, and its president’s habit of issuing public political statements without adequate internal consultation.
The petition is a legitimate, democratic response to an uncomfortable truth: LAZ has lost its balance, and its members want it back – that has nothing—absolutely nothing—to do with the government.
