Africa-Press – Zambia. The national dispute over Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 has now shifted from a debate over content to a battle over process. What began as arguments about clauses has transformed into sweeping claims that the entire undertaking is illegal for allegedly lacking legitimacy and consultation. This shift is not accidental. It reflects a strategic retreat from technical engagement with the Bill into procedural contestation as the parliamentary vote draws closer. In law and politics, that shift matters.
At the centre of the consultation debate lies one incontestable fact. More than 11,000 submissions were received by the Technical Committee that reviewed the proposed amendments. That figure is not trivial in Zambia’s constitutional history. While it may not represent every shade of public opinion, it meets a reasonable democratic threshold for structured public participation.
Consultation in law does not mean unanimity. It means opportunity to be heard. That opportunity was provided.
The argument that consultation is invalid because certain interest groups feel insufficiently engaged introduces a dangerous doctrine into democratic practice. It implies that legitimacy flows not from citizens broadly, but from a select set of institutions that see themselves as custodians of public conscience. This creates an elite veto over national processes. In constitutional law, no such veto exists.
Civic groups advise. Parliament decides.
Courts, meanwhile, intervene strictly on legality, not political comfort. Recent dismissals of contempt proceedings against the Speaker and Members of Parliament reaffirm a critical separation of powers. The judiciary is not a parallel legislature. It guards procedure. It does not rewrite political outcomes. Attempts to halt the Bill by serial litigation reflect frustration with the arithmetic of parliamentary politics rather than clear constitutional breaches.
The supremacy of Parliament in constitutional amendment is not symbolic. It is substantive. A constitutional democracy does not operate by street consensus or social media pressure. It operates by representation and voting thresholds. A two-thirds requirement is not cosmetic. It is a structural safeguard.
If a Bill meets the required threshold, it passes not because it is popular with elites, but because it has secured constitutional authority.
The growing tone of moral absolutism around Bill 7 now threatens to hollow out democratic discipline. When every adverse outcome is branded illegal, and every loss reclassified as injustice, the rule of law itself is weakened. Legitimacy does not arise from approval by pressure groups. It arises from procedure, evidence, debate, and final vote.
Those who oppose Bill 7 are not without tools. The Constitution provides a clear avenue. Persuade Members of Parliament. Mobilise constituencies. Influence floor numbers. That is how legislation is defeated in a representative system.
Social media slogans, reputational attacks, and institutional suspicion do not substitute parliamentary arithmetic.
Democracy does not guarantee that every opinion prevails. It guarantees that every opinion may contest power through structured mechanisms.
Parliament remains the battlefield for Bill 7. If the Bill fails there, it fails legitimately. If it passes there, it passes constitutionally. That is the discipline of democratic governance, even when outcomes disappoint those who opposed them.
For More News And Analysis About Zambia Follow Africa-Press
