Ollus R. Ndomu
Africa-Press – Zambia. The constitutional debate around Bill 7 reached a new stage on Friday as the Oasis Forum delegation met President Hakainde Hichilema at State House for a seven hour dialogue session. The meeting followed a morning prayer rally at the Pope Square where political actors, former ministers and church leaders appeared in coordinated black attire. The attendance raised questions about whether the event was a civic platform or a gathering of elite figures who once occupied the centre of power.
Oasis Forum Chairperson Beauty Katebe opened the dialogue with a demand for the full withdrawal of Bill 7. She argued that “Bill 7 must be completely withdrawn from the floor of Parliament” and urged government to “prioritise the Bill of Rights.” Her framing presented Oasis Forum as the custodian of public sentiment. But the rally earlier in the day drew mostly political veterans, former cabinet ministers, and opposition presidential hopefuls.
This raises a central question. Which majority does Oasis Forum claim to represent when its physical gatherings are dominated by elite actors rather than broad national participation?
The meeting was shaped by contrasting tones. Katebe adopted a confrontational posture, stating that citizens expected “celebration, not alarms.” The President responded with measured sarcasm, greeting the delegation by saying, “I hope your prayers went well.”
Hichilema warned against street mobilisation, noting that “street protests can easily lead to violence.” His remarks reflected a government stance that views dialogue as the first option and public demonstrations as a last resort.
The exchange revealed different understandings of negotiation. One side presented withdrawal as a starting point. The other framed negotiation as a process of compromise.
The debate over representation sits at the centre of the current tension. Zambia’s constitutional system recognises Parliament as the formal channel of national consensus. Every region and demographic group is represented there. The Constitution was amended in 2016 through this mechanism when President Edgar Lungu and the PF government pushed through major constitutional changes despite UPND objection. The PF secured the votes with MMD support.
Records show the process was legal and binding. History shows that constitutional change in Zambia is decided by parliamentary arithmetic, not by civic coalitions alone.
Katebe’s remarks also raise structural questions. If Oasis Forum is the benchmark of consensus, what happens to the views submitted through the Technical Committee and parliamentary consultations? Do those citizens not think properly? The framing risks creating a hierarchy of civic legitimacy where elite platforms overshadow ordinary contributions.
The constitutional review process has always accommodated divergent views. The challenge is to balance civic input with institutional authority without privileging one civic faction over another.
President Hichilema’s statement after the meeting reinforced this principle. He emphasised that “the constitutional review process should not become a source of division” and reminded the nation that “divergent opinions are normal in a democracy.” He committed to “fair and equitable distribution of resources” and thanked the Oasis Forum leadership for entering dialogue.
The formal tone contrasted sharply with the confrontational rhetoric outside State House, highlighting the gap between public mobilisation and institutional decision making.
The emerging dynamic suggests an ongoing negotiation rather than a settled confrontation. Sources indicate that the dialogue will resume with a smaller delegation to improve clarity. This reflects a recognition by both sides that constitutional reform cannot be resolved through public messaging alone. It requires technical precision, political realism and procedural discipline.
Withdrawal, amendment or retention will ultimately be decided on the floor of Parliament where the Constitution places that responsibility.
The wider question remains unresolved. Who carries the voice of “the people” in this debate? Civic groups, clerics and opposition leaders all claim that mantle. Yet Zambia’s constitutional order places that authority in elected representatives.
Any outcome outside Parliament risks creating parallel centres of legitimacy. The present dialogue is therefore not only about Bill 7. It is a test of Zambia’s institutional discipline, civic restraint and constitutional maturity..
Source: The Zambian Observer
For More News And Analysis About Zambia Follow Africa-Press
