The Editor Zambia
The debate surrounding Zambia’s newly-passed Public Gatherings Act has generated more heat than light.
Opposition politicians and some civil society voices have rushed to label the legislation as the “death of democracy,” but such alarmist language ignores both the history of Zambia’s public order laws and the practical realities of governing a peaceful nation. 
Every functioning society in the world regulates public conduct in one way or another. No country allows unlimited gatherings without guidelines because public spaces belong to everyone and must be managed in a way that guarantees peace, safety, and order.
Zambia cannot be an exception. Laws that regulate gatherings are not automatically instruments of oppression. When properly designed and fairly enforced, they are safeguards against chaos, violence, and disorder.
The Public Gatherings Act must, therefore, be understood in its proper context. This law is not a resurrection of colonial repression, as some critics would want the public to believe.
In fact, it seeks to replace the outdated colonial Public Order Act of 1955, a law that was genuinely notorious for suppressing African political activism during the struggle for independence.
Under colonial rule, the Public Order Ordinance was weaponised against African nationalists who demanded freedom and self-determination.
Political meetings were blocked, activists were harassed, and gatherings were violently disrupted.
After independence, the UNIP government inherited and renamed the law into the Public Order Act in 1967, but over the years, successive governments also found themselves accused of abusing it for political convenience.
That painful history is exactly why the current reform must be judged fairly and not through the lens of fearmongering.
The new Bill does not stop people from gathering in their homes, attending weddings, funerals, church services, or holding indoor political meetings.
Those exemptions are clearly stated. What the law regulates are public gatherings in open spaces such as streets, markets, and public squares where issues of traffic, security, and public safety naturally arise.
Critics have deliberately distorted the contents of the law by falsely claiming that citizens will need police permission to meet in small groups. This is simply untrue.
The Bill defines a public gathering as seven or more people assembled for political, civic, social, or religious purposes in public places.
Furthermore, organisers are only required to notify the police in advance. Notification is not the same as begging for permission.
This distinction is critical.
In the new law, the police are informed so they can prepare security, redirect traffic where necessary, and prevent clashes between rival groups.
Zambia has unfortunately witnessed instances where political processions degenerated into violence because there was no proper coordination.
Responsible governance demands preventive measures rather than waiting for disorder to erupt.
Even advanced democracies regulate demonstrations and public events. In countries often celebrated as bastions of freedom such as the United Kingdom, France, and the United States, authorities require notice for marches and protests.
This is not dictatorship. It is common sense administration.
The UPND government under President Hakainde Hichilema appears to be attempting a more balanced approach by narrowing the scope of regulation compared to the old colonial framework.
The Bill reportedly provides that if police do not respond within three days, the gathering is deemed approved. Such provisions are meant to prevent arbitrary delays and abuse of authority.
It is, therefore, unfair to portray the legislation as an attack on democracy when its stated intention is to balance constitutional freedoms with public security.
Rights and responsibilities must always go together. Freedom without order eventually becomes lawlessness.
The emotional reactions from some opposition figures may also stem from political suspicion rather than an objective reading of the law itself.
In Zambia’s polarised political environment, every legal reform is immediately viewed through a partisan lens. Yet good governance requires maturity from both leaders and citizens.
No government can successfully develop a nation in an atmosphere of endless disorder and confrontation. Investors seek stability.
Citizens want peace in their communities. Parents want children to walk safely in town centres without fear of violence during unregulated demonstrations.
These concerns are just as important as the right to assemble.
What Zambia must guard against is not the existence of laws regulating gatherings but the abuse of such laws. That is where democratic vigilance should focus.
Institutions, including the courts, parliament, media, and civil society, must ensure the law is implemented fairly and without political bias.
If enforced in good faith, the Public Gatherings Act could help Zambia move away from the darker legacy of colonial public order laws toward a more modern system that protects both liberty and stability.
Democracy does not mean the absence of regulation. It means the presence of fair rules applied equally to all citizens. Peace, unity, and national stability are not enemies of freedom.
They are the foundation upon which freedom survives.
