By EditorZambia
In the heated national debate surrounding Bill No. 7, one thing has become abundantly clear: much of the noise arises not from what the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) has done, but from what many people assume it has done.
Testimony before the Parliamentary Select Committee has finally clarified this matter, confirming one crucial fact—the ECZ acted fully within the law and procedure when it submitted the completed delimitation report to the Executive, and the Commission cannot release that report without authorisation from the very arm of government to which it was officially handed. 
During the committee session, Hon. Garry Nkombo demanded to know when the ECZ would announce which constituencies are due for delimitation. This question has fuelled public speculation for weeks, as constituency boundaries directly determine representation and distribution of political power.
However, the answer the ECZ provided was not only logical, but supported by both precedent and constitutional guidance.
The Commission explained that after conducting a nationwide, publicly advertised consultation in 2019, a comprehensive delimitation report was produced. That report—now refined and updated—was duly submitted to the Executive, which by law holds custody of it.
Once submitted, the Commission no longer has authority to publish or circulate it unless the Executive gives a green light.
This explanation is neither scandalous nor unusual. In fact, it is the very process the Constitution anticipates.
The Executive must first consider and integrate the report’s recommendations into the legislative proposals—such as Bill 7—before the ECZ can take the final step of issuing a statutory instrument that legally establishes the new boundaries. That final step only happens after constitutional amendments are enacted.
In other words, the ECZ is doing exactly what the law expects: it provides expert electoral data, hands it to the mandated authority, and awaits constitutional amendments before implementing the results.
Why the ECZ Cannot Announce Constituencies Now
Critics argue that the ECZ should “reveal the constituencies first,” but this demand ignores a basic constitutional order. The Commission can not pre-empt parliament or the executive by announcing changes that depend on a law that has not yet been passed. Doing so would amount to overstepping its mandate.
At present, the delimitation data is the foundation upon which Bill 7 is built. Parliament is the body tasked with debating the amendment—not the ECZ. Once the constitutional decision is made, the Commission will then operationalise the law by issuing the statutory instrument detailing new boundaries.
Far from hiding information, the ECZ is respecting the separation of powers. It is not the Commission’s role to leak reports or force premature announcements simply because public curiosity has risen.
The rule of law demands process, not panic.
Transparency Must Follow Process — Not Replace It
Opponents of Bill 7 have framed the ECZ’s testimony as proof of secrecy. In reality, what they are pointing to is simply the correct administrative sequence.
Government documents move through stages: consultation, submission, Executive consideration, legislative debate, and finally publication.
Transparency is indeed essential. But transparency does not mean abandoning order. You can not release a report while it is actively informing a bill under parliamentary review. Doing so risks compromising legislative integrity, misrepresenting technical recommendations, and politicising what should remain an evidence-based process.
Once the constitutional amendment is enacted, the ECZ has already committed itself to publicly releasing the new constituency boundaries in the statutory instrument—an act that carries legal force and public accountability.
That is transparency done right.
The ECZ Has Already Done the Hardwork
It is also important to acknowledge the extent of the 2019 exercise. The Commission went across all provinces, gathering submissions from citizens, traditional leaders, civil society, local authorities, and stakeholders. This was not a secretive or elite-driven effort. It was one of the most extensive public consultations the Commission has ever undertaken.
Thousands Zambians gave input. The ECZ compiled that input into a detailed technical document reflecting demographic trends, population growth, geographic constraints, and administrative realities.
Those who now accuse the Commission of secrecy conveniently ignore the public engagement phase that occurred in full daylight.
A report that begins with public input can not credibly be accused of being a product of silence.
Parliament Should Debate with Facts in Hand
Some MPs have argued that the delimitation report must be released before debate. But the proper institution to request that release is the Executive, not the ECZ.
The Commission has already stated—correctly—that it can not act without authorisation.
What is needed now is not blame, but consistency: if Parliament requires the document for debate, it can simply summon it through established parliamentary procedure.
The solution lies in institutional channels, not public outrage.
A Defensible, Law-Abiding Position
The ECZ’s clarity before the committee should actually reassure the country.
It confirms: that the delimitation exercise was conducted,that the report was submitted through the proper authority, that the Commission respects constitutional hierarchy,and that the public will be informed at the correct legal stage.
This is how mature democracies operate.
As the debate around Bill 7 continues, Zambians must resist the temptation to treat every procedural step as political conspiracy.
The integrity of institutions depends on allowing each arm of government to function within its mandate. The ECZ has done exactly that.
In the words of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, “If institutions are to serve people, they must be allowed to work as they are designed.”
The Commission has worked as designed. Now, the nation must let the rest of the process unfold.
