The Editor Zambia
There is something deeply cynical about the manner in which sections of the opposition continue to weaponise the law on public gatherings.
Rather than presenting the full legal framework honestly, they deliberately cherry-pick isolated clauses and definitions in order to manufacture outrage and portray the law as uniquely draconian. 
It is a strategy built not on legal integrity but on the assumption that ordinary citizens do not read beyond political slogans.
The latest manipulation revolves around the definition of what constitutes a “public gathering”.
Yes, the law broadly defines a gathering as involving three or more persons in a public place. But that definition alone is not the law in its entirety. A definition merely explains terminology used within legislation. It is not, in itself, a blanket restriction on citizens assembling.
That distinction matters enormously.
Any serious legal analysis must go beyond definitions and examine the substantive provisions of the statute: the procedures, the rules of conduct, the thresholds for enforcement, and critically, the exemptions. Yet the opposition conveniently avoids discussing the exemptions because doing so would collapse the dramatic narrative they are attempting to construct.
The truth is that the Public Order Act contains numerous exemptions where prior authorisation or police intervention is not required. Religious gatherings, funerals, weddings, educational activities, and several other categories enjoy exemptions under the law. In fact, the list of exempted gatherings is broader than the list of events that would ordinarily trigger regulatory scrutiny.
But the opposition will never emphasise that point. Why? Because outrage is politically profitable.
By selectively quoting legal provisions while concealing the broader context, they seek to create the false impression that every small gathering automatically becomes illegal without police permission. That is intellectually dishonest and legally misleading.
Equally misleading is the pretence that the current debate represents some unprecedented assault on civil liberties.
Zambia’s experience under the Public Order Act did not suddenly begin today. For years, even under the old framework where organisers merely had to notify the police, opposition activists repeatedly complained of restrictions, blocked demonstrations, and political interference.
People still found themselves conducting protests in bushes, remote areas, and hidden locations despite the “notification only” requirement that is now nostalgically romanticised by the very same political actors.
That historical reality exposes the hypocrisy in the current discourse. The practical problem has never merely been the wording of the statute. It has always been the application, interpretation, and enforcement environment surrounding public gatherings.
This is precisely why the current amendments are unlikely to fundamentally transform the situation on the ground. Whether one supports or opposes the proposed provisions, pretending that Zambia previously enjoyed a perfectly liberal and unrestricted framework is revisionist fiction.
The opposition’s conduct reveals a disturbing pattern: they simplify complex legal matters into emotionally charged propaganda because they believe many citizens will never verify the facts for themselves. It is politics anchored in selective outrage rather than honest engagement with the law.
Citizens deserve better than manipulated legal half-truths. A mature national conversation about public order legislation requires intellectual honesty.
It requires acknowledging both the restrictive tendencies within the law and the exemptions that equally exist.
It requires discussing not merely definitions but implementation.
Above all, it requires treating the public as capable of understanding nuance instead of feeding them carefully edited fragments designed to inflame passions.
The law should always be open to scrutiny and reform where necessary. But that scrutiny must be grounded in complete facts, not theatrical distortions masquerading as legal analysis.
