THE Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) says Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 is a nullity and cannot legally be a basis for any future Constitutional reforms.

LAZ president Lungisani Zulu further argues that it is unwise and untimely to carry out the Constitutional amendment process so close to an election amidst fiscal constraints in the country.

On the other hand, Council of Churches in Zambia (CCZ) General Secretary Bishop Emmanuel Chikoya has called on government to completely abandon Bill No. 7, emphasising that the Constitutional Court has already ruled it unconstitutional.

On June 27, the Constitutional Court held that the State’s decision to initiate a Constitutional amendment process before undertaking wide consultations with the people goes against the spirit of the Constitution. The ConCourt therefore ordered that an independent body of experts conduct wide consultations with the people.

In a statement, Tuesday, Zulu said Bill 7, having been initiated without wide public consultations, was a nullity.

“In light of the Judgment of the Constitutional Court, it follows that the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 7 of 2025 which was initiated without the cited mandatory antecedent wide public consultations is a nullity. Although currently deferred in the National Assembly, the Bill cannot legally be a basis for any future Constitutional reforms. LAZ urges Government to strictly abide by the guidance of the Constitutional Court and merely play a facilitatory role to the people’s wishes on any future Constitutional reform process,” Zulu stated.

Zulu added that government should reconsider any plans to embark on amending the Constitution until after the 2026 general elections.

“LAZ strongly recommends that Government seriously reconsider any plans to embark on the process of amending the Constitution until after the 2026 General Elections, so that any reform to the supreme law of the land is people-driven, holistic to include expansion of the Bill of Rights to encompass economic and social rights as well as enjoys broad-based stakeholder consensus including from political players both in terms of process and content,” he stated.

“The protracted nature and huge expense involved in a wide consultative process necessary to legitimately alter the existing content of the Constitution as demanded by the Constitutional Court makes it unwise and untimely to carry out the same so close to an election and amidst fiscal constraints the country faces. The financial impact of any Constitutional changes on the National Budget must also be carefully weighed against other competing needs”.

Zulu noted that the Constitutional Court, by its judgement, stressed that although the legislature was given the power to make law, when it comes to the Constitution, that power was to amend and not to frame the amendments.

“By its Judgement, the Constitutional Court stressed that although the legislature is given the power to make law, when it comes to the Constitution, that power is that of amending and not that of framing the amendments. The People are the owners of the decision to do away with a particular provision and to replace it with another provision. This critical consultative and decision-making stage is what gives legitimacy to the Constitutional amendments, which eventually bind to the Constitution and become one with it. This ensures that the Constitution is properly located as the Supreme law of the land, with all other laws deriving their authority from it in a normative hierarchy,” he stated.

“Additionally, considering that Zambia is under a Constitutional democracy, the Executive and the Legislature are and can only be agents of the People, but never the principal. They are empowered to represent the People, in other words, to act for and on People’s behalf and not to replace them. It was the Constitutional Court’s considered view that the Technical Committee on Drafting the Zambian Constitution process should be replicated or something of similar magnitude should be pursued in initiating Constitutional amendments. The Court considered that this is what constitutes a wide consultative process necessary to alter the existing content of the Constitution”.

He stated that government and state actors should only be facilitators in the Constitution amendment process.

“Further, that in the said process, Government and State actors should be facilitators of a people driven process led by an independent committee of experts which should collect views directly from the people and existing records of submissions by the People. Only after these proposals are put to the People in a structured manner such as through District, Provincial and National level discussions and adoption can they be put through the process in Article 79 of the Constitution,” stated Zulu.

In a separate interview, Tuesday, Bishop Chikoya called on government to completely abandon Bill No. 7 following the ConCourt’s decision.

“So basically, in view of what has happened in the Constitutional Court, I think the best thing to do is to completely drop it because how do you continue with something that has been ruled against by the Constitutional Court? I think that would not be okay. My basic understanding of the law, and the Church has always been available and ready to facilitate dialogue, to facilitate processes that ensure that voices of all Zambians are reflected, especially in the critical process of constitution-making. So the Church is always concerned about the whole thing; that is why you see us forming and running CCMG, Christian Churches Monitoring Group, to ensure that we monitor Zambian elections so that that independent voice is on the same. So we are interested in everything related to Zambia, and so we’ll be more than willing, and we are always willing, to facilitate processes that would help to ensure there is transparency, there is inclusivity, so we are concerned,” he said.

Bishop Chikoya said he found it difficult to understand why government would choose to proceed with something already declared unlawful by the Constitutional Court.

“I mean, how do you continue something that the Constitutional Court has ruled against as unconstitutional? I mean, how do you continue with that? So I think everybody should stand guided, and no matter how sincere you are, if you are heading in a wrong direction, you’ll be sincerely guided. We need to make sure that we come back to the drawing board and do the right thing, and again, the issues of timing and all those things will still be a source of concern,” said Bishop Chikoya.

“I think in the first place, we want to appreciate the momentous judgement, major judgement made by the Constitutional Court, basically confirming and affirming what we’ve been stating: there has been no consultation, and there’s no stakeholder who is interested and that he can drive the process and pick up what needs to be amended. So we are very grateful to the Judiciary, it’s giving us hope that we can indeed pick justice and find it. I think that is commendable. Of course, we also take note of the development of the day where we saw that the bill was presented in parliament, although we were not told it would not be presented, but it has been deferred”.