By EditorZambia
For an organisation that claims to be a neutral civil society coalition, the Oasis Forum has increasingly behaved less like an advocacy platform and more like a coordinated opposition political bloc.
What was once built to provide constructive input on governance has steadily shifted into a tribal political pressure machine—one that is now being used by political actors who cannot marshal public support through their own political parties. 
The pattern is becoming too obvious to ignore.
Whenever the government takes a position on constitutional reform, governance structures, or national policy, the Oasis Forum is among the first to issue confrontational statements.
Worse still, in most cases, these statements are often without balanced context and without demonstrating genuine engagement with national institutions.
Instead of offering solutions, it has adopted a tone that mirrors opposition rhetoric—alarmist, absolutist, and designed to paint the administration as illegitimate or authoritarian.
The latest developments within the LAZ highlight this problem clearly.
Former LAZ president Eddie Mwitwa may argue that the Association’s voice becomes “louder” when merged with like-minded organisations, but that is precisely the concern.
A professional legal body should not pursue loudness—its mandate is objectivity, not activism disguised as jurisprudence.
When LAZ members themselves call for an urgent Extraordinary General Meeting to question whether statements are being made without proper consultation, that is a red flag. It shows internal discomfort with the direction the association has taken under the Oasis Forum umbrella.
Similarly, the NGOCC and several church bodies within the Oasis Forum have drifted from impartial advocacy to politically charged messaging.
Instead of promoting civic dialogue, they increasingly lobby for positions that echo opposition talking points.
The result is a coalition that appears less focused on strengthening democracy and more focused on mobilising public sentiment against a democratically elected government not to talk of the ethnic considerations at play from some bloc.
Critiquing the State is legitimate; attempting to sway the citizenry into believing that every policy disagreement is grounds for revolt is not.
The Oasis Forum is not as innocent as it claims.
Transparency requires acknowledging that it has become a political actor.
If it wants to operate like an opposition party, it should say so openly—so Zambians can evaluate its intentions with clarity, not under the veil of civil society neutrality.
