By EditorZambia
Even if President Hakainde Hichilema were to withdraw the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 this very minute, anyone paying close attention knows one thing with absolute certainty: the same groups demanding its withdrawal would immediately shift their outrage to another subject.
They would find a new angle, a new accusation, or a new rallying point to attack his leadership.
Because the issue has never truly been Bill 7.
The real target has always been the President himself, and the Bill is merely the latest convenient hook on which to hang long-standing political resentment. 
This reality became starkly visible during the Oasis Forum’s visit to State House, where Forum Chairperson Beauty Katebe led a delegation to ask for the Bill’s complete withdrawal and a fresh constitutional process.
On the surface, it sounded noble — “legal safeguards,” “inclusivity,” “holistic review,” and the familiar buzzwords of civil society advocacy.
But a closer examination reveals that the Forum’s proposals are not only impractical but also contradictory and, in some cases, unnecessary.
They amount to moving the goalposts, because the objective is not really to build a better Constitution; it is to corner the President politically.
The Demand for Withdrawal Without Engagement: A Contradiction
Katebe insists the Forum is not opposed to reform. They simply oppose this reform. According to her, the process was not “inclusive enough” from the beginning. But this argument collapses under basic scrutiny.
If inclusivity is the concern, why reject dialogue at the very moment the President is offering it — directly, transparently, and for a full seven hours?
One does not attend a meeting designed for engagement, then insists that engagement is impossible. It’s like demanding a conversation while simultaneously refusing to talk.
President Hichilema has repeatedly opened every door in the State House, Parliament, courts, ministries, to ensure genuine consultation.
The Oasis Forum’s insistence that the process must “restart entirely” ignores the fact that inclusivity is happening now. Their position effectively means:
“Our voices matter only if we dictate the starting point.”
That is not democracy. That is veto power disguised as participation.
The “Fresh Process” Argument: A Recipe for Perpetual Delay
The Forum wants the government to abandon the current Bill and begin a brand-new constitutional review, complete with new structures, frameworks, and round-table consultations.
On paper, that sounds idealistic. In reality, it is unrealistic and opens a long and costly national process that could consume years.
Zambia already has experience with protracted constitutional overhauls, the Mung’omba Commission, the Patrick Mvunga technical committee, and the long journey to the 2016 Constitution.
Every time we “start afresh,” the nation loses momentum, public attention wanes, and reforms drown in process rather than progress.
If the current Bill includes areas requiring improvement, the logical step is amendments, not total demolition.
As President Hichilema has stated, constitutional processes must advance the well-being of citizens, not to trap the country in endless procedural loops designed to exhaust political capital.
Those calling for a restart should explain why Zambia must again embark on a marathon journey when meaningful reform can happen through constructive engagement where we already are.
The Bill of Rights Question: A Convenient Distraction
Katebe adds that the Bill of Rights should be opened up and reviewed “holistically.” This is another well-packaged but misleading argument.
Opening the Bill of Rights requires a national referendum.
Has the Forum explained how this will be financed, organised, or protected from the political manipulation they themselves fear? No.
Has the Forum outlined any failures within the current Bill of Rights that urgently require amendment? None were mentioned.
The call to reopen the Bill of Rights is a perfect example of raising the bar deliberately high so that the government can not possibly meet the demand, enabling critics to continue arguing that the process is illegitimate.
This is not about rights. It is about setting traps.
The Claim of “Rushed Process”: Not Supported by Facts
Katebe claims the Bill is being “rushed.” Yet the Bill has gone through the standard parliamentary route: publication, debate, committee scrutiny, public submissions, and now an extended dialogue with critics.
A rushed process does not involve seven hours of conversation with those who oppose it. Nor does it involve the President personally guiding the engagement.
If anything, this administration has slowed the process to create space for dissenting voices. But even that is reframed as a fault. It reveals the impossible standard the Forum has set, one in which failure is guaranteed no matter what the government does.
Why Bill 7 Has Become a Proxy Battle
The Oasis Forum is not wrong to demand accountability and proper procedure; civil society should challenge power.
But it is disingenuous to pretend that the uproar is purely procedural.
Bill 7 has become a symbol, not of constitutional reform, but of the deeper discomfort some political and religious actors feel toward President Hichilema.
This is why, even if the President withdrew the Bill tomorrow, they would accuse him of backtracking.
They would claim victory and immediately use it as proof of weakness.
They would shift to another issue, perhaps the economy, foreign policy, the mines, or decentralisation.
They would resurrect old narratives about “dictatorship,” “arrogance,” or “exclusion.”
In politics, some groups are not looking for solutions; they are looking for ammunition.
Countering the Forum’s Key Proposals
- Withdrawal of Bill 7
Counterpoint: Withdrawal does not solve anything; it delays reform and rewards obstruction. The responsible path is improving the Bill through debate, not destroying it. - Fresh, legally safeguarded process
Counterpoint: The current process already has legal safeguards: parliamentary procedure, judicial oversight, public consultation, and now direct presidential engagement. Creating new structures wastes time and money without adding value. - Broad-based participation
Counterpoint: Participation is already ongoing. Those calling for it are the same people who met the President for seven hours. Participation is not synonymous with veto power.
A President Who Invites Critics, and Critics Who Refuse to Be Satisfied
President Hichilema’s approach to dissent is unprecedented in Zambia’s political history.
The President has turned the other cheek, invited his harshest critics to State House, and allowed them to speak freely. He has shown that disagreement is not hostility and that dialogue is not surrender.
But some stakeholders have grown comfortable with perpetual outrage; dialogue deprives them of political theatre. They prefer megaphones to meetings.
The Nation Deserves Better Than Manufactured Conflict
Bill 7 can be debated constructively. It can be improved. It can be amended. But pretending that the Bill is the root of national tension is dishonest. The real tension arises from groups that have decided their role is not to participate but to antagonise.
Whether the President keeps the Bill or withdraws it entirely, one thing will remain unchanged:
Those determined to attack him will simply find a new battlefield.
Because the fight is not about the Constitution.
It is about the man in State House.
