Introduction
Zambia
is currently undergoing one of its most consequential constitutional reform
exercises in decades. In October 2025, the government formally launched a
nationwide consultation process to amend key provisions of the Constitution.
Touted as a “people-driven” reform, the process has elicited both optimism and
deep concern, raising critical questions about inclusivity, transparency, and
the legitimacy of potential changes.
Background
On
2 October 2025, the government inaugurated a 25-member Technical Committee on
Constitutional Amendments, chaired by retired Supreme Court Judge Christopher
Mushabati. The Committee was mandated to
hold public and virtual consultations across all ten provinces, collecting
citizen submissions on constitutional provisions that may require reform. By 26
November 2025, the Committee is expected to deliver its final report and a
proposed bill.
Key
Provisions Under Consideration
Several
proposed reforms have drawn particular attention:
- ·
Parliamentary Expansion
& Electoral Reform: Bill No. 7 of 2025 suggests increasing elected National
Assembly seats from 156 to 211 and introducing a Mixed-Member Proportional
Representation (MMPR) system to boost inclusivity.
- ·
Representation Quotas:
Proposals include reserved seats for women, youth, and persons with
disabilities.
- ·
Delimitation: The reform
aims to redraw constituencies and wards for more equitable resource allocation.
- ·
By-elections: A
controversial clause will eliminate by-elections if a seat becomes vacant
within 180 days of a general election, a provision defended as cost-saving.
Consultation
Process
The
Committee rolled out its public sittings in two phases: the first phase (27-30
October) covered Central, North-Western, Western, Eastern, and Northern
provinces; the second phase (3-13 November) covers the remaining provinces:
Copperbelt, Muchinga, Luapula, Southern, and Lusaka. In addition to physical meetings, virtual
platforms are being used to widen participation.
Criticism
and Concerns
Despite
the rhetoric of inclusion, critics have raised red flags:
- ·
Civil Society Pushback:
Fourteen CSOs, including Chapter One Foundation and Transparency International
Zambia, have rejected what they call a “fast-tracked” process, demanding a
pause until after the 2026 elections.
- ·
Legal Scepticism:
Constitutional lawyer John Sangwa argues the process is effectively pre-determined,
lacking genuine space for public input.
- ·
Judicial Scrutiny: In
June 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled that proceeding without broad
consultations violates constitutional principles.
- ·
Power Dynamics: There are
fears that some reforms may increase executive control, weaken accountability,
and potentially erode democratic checks.
Government’s
Defence
The
government has defended its approach. After public backlash, Justice Minister
Princess Kas
une pledged that the process would be genuinely inclusive and led
by people’s demands, not by a secret draft.
The administration argues that reforms such as proportional
representation and limiting by-elections will deepen democratic representation
and save public resources. President
Hichilema has also emphasised that the goal is a constitution that reflects
Zambia’s diversity and evolving governance needs.
Legal
and Constitutional Implications
If
implemented, these amendments could reshape Zambia’s political landscape, resulting in a more representative parliament, a better regional balance, and potentially stronger
inclusion of marginalised groups. But the compressed timeline and accusations
of pre-determination raise legitimacy risks. If citizens feel their voices do
not matter, the reforms might lack long-term public buy-in.
Moreover,
the process raises questions about constitutionalism: is this a genuine
people-powered reform, or is it being leveraged by the incumbent government to
entrench power? How the final report addresses these tensions will be crucial.
Conclusion
The
2025 constitutional amendment process is undoubtedly a defining moment for
Zambia. It offers an opportunity to modernise governance structures, promote
inclusivity, and strengthen democratic institutions. But for this to be more
than symbolic, the process must be transparent, genuinely participatory, and
accountable.
