“Voices of the People: How the Constitutional Court rekindled the flame of citizen participation and why the Government must heed the Court’s call on Bill No. 7”
By
Prof. Cephas Lumina
A Constitution should not be dictated by a select few but should reflect the voices of the people. Zambia’s highest law is more than a text: it is a contract between the government and its citizens. Its legitimacy hinges not only on its content, but just as importantly, on the opportunities provided to citizens to contribute to shaping it. In this respect, the Constitutional Court’s landmark ruling in Munir Zulu and Another v Attorney General on 27 June 2025 has saved that contract from the brink. The decision emphatically reaffirms the indispensable principle that constitutional reform must be anchored in consensus, dialogue, and public participation.
The context: Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 and rising suspicion
When Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 7 of 2025 was officially published on 23 May 2025, eyebrows went up across the political spectrum and civil society. The Bill was ostensibly aimed at, among other things, revamping electoral and parliamentary processes, such as revising by‑election rules, increasing parliamentary seats, improving representation of marginalized groups, removing term limits for mayors and council chairpersons, and lowering the minimum qualifications for appointment as Secretary to the Cabinet. Despite being presented as routine administrative updates to the constitutional order, the manner in which the Bill was drafted and introduced revealed a troubling trend: acceleration without consultation, decree without discourse.
Critics, including public commentators and organizations like the Law Association of Zambia, Transparency International Zambia, women’s rights coalitions, and disability advocacy groups, pointed out significant procedural shortcomings. Their main concern: this was not genuine reform, but rather a premeditated plan crafted behind closed doors and pushed through a compliant National Assembly.
It is important to note that the United Nations emphasizes the importance of broad participation in constitutional reform, ensuring that citizens have a say in shaping their constitution’s future. The UN’s guidance on constitutional change stresses that the success of such reforms hinges on the support they receive from various sectors of society, and that transparent, participatory, and inclusive processes enhance the legitimacy of any constitutional changes. Yet, the government proceeded to introduce the Bill in the National Assembly without conducting public consultations, releasing policy documents, or seeking feedback from the citizens who would be most impacted by the proposed constitutional alterations.
The ConCourt judgment: A judicious rejection of process failure
This is where Munir Zulu and Another v Attorney‑General enters the story – and why it matters. On 27 June 2025, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling that exposed the flaws in procedural complacency. At its heart was a lesson delivered in three key principles. Firstly, it highlighted that the process is as crucial as the content in determining constitutional legitimacy. Even a well-crafted amendment made in secrecy is inadequate if it lacks public involvement. Secondly, public participation is non-negotiable, especially in constitutional amendments that impact democratic principles. The Court emphasized that the “people” cannot be passive recipients – they must be active contributors. Lastly, in an age where executive and legislative power may mistake haste for mandate, the judiciary has a crucial role as the guardian not just of law, but of democratic method.
In Munir Zulu and Another, the Constitutional Court underscored that the Constitution is a social contract between the governors and the governed and that the executive’s constitutional responsibility is to exercise its authority in a manner compatible with the principles of social justice and “for the people’s well-being and benefit.” It stressed the importance of consensus and citizen participation in constitutional amendments, calling for a people-driven process led by an independent committee of experts to gather views directly from the public. The Court stated that:
“State actors should be facilitators of a people-driven process led by an independent committee of experts which shall 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 discussion and adoption can they be put through the process in Article 79 of the Constitution.”
In the Court’s view, a process which seeks to amend the Constitution without evidence of consensus from broad consultations with the people undermines the principles of democracy, good governance, and constitutionalism enshrined in the Constitution.
The Court rejected the state’s claim that the proposed amendments were “non-contentious,” stating that “even the so-called non-contentious issues” can have a significant impact on the Constitution, and that the only way to protect the Constitution is to ensure that every amendment process involves wide consultation with the public from the beginning. It mandated a consultative process with the people led by an independent body of experts to ensure legitimacy in the amendment process.
Concluding that the process leading to the drafting of the Bill lacked legitimacy, the Court declared the state’s decision to initiate a constitutional amendment without broad consultation unconstitutional. It ordered the state to conduct a people-driven process with extensive consultations led by an independent expert body.
What the decision means: Restoring Zenith in constitutional reform
By declaring the process leading to the drafting of Bill 7 unconstitutional, the Court was saying that the procedure used to initiate and draft the Bill violates the Constitution. If a legislative proposal or bill is a product of an unconstitutional process, it is considered tainted and legally ineffective before passage. If such a bill becomes law, the court may strike it down as unconstitutional – not necessarily because of its content, but because of the invalid procedure by which it was enacted. Bill No. 7 is constitutionally tainted and invalid.
The Court’s decision has significant implications in three key areas. Firstly, it emphasizes the importance of public participation in constitutional reform, setting a higher standard for future bills to emerge from public discourse and consensus-building rather than being dropped overnight on unsuspecting citizens. Secondly, the ruling underscores the need for institutionalized public processes in constitutional amendments, ensuring more robust mechanisms for public engagement and feedback. Lastly, the Court’s decisive intervention serves as a warning against bypassing constitutionally mandated procedures, establishing a precedent for future challenges. It is now evident that adherence to proper processes is crucial for reform efforts, and shortcuts may face judicial scrutiny.
Why Bill 7 must be withdrawn – and why that’s only the beginning
In light of the Court’s determination that Bill 7 lacked substantial public input, the government’s immediate duty is clear: withdraw it. However, rescinding the Bill is just the first step. The government must also initiate a truly inclusive, participatory, and transparent process for constitutional reform. This involves conducting extensive consultations with various segments of Zambian society, such as youth, women, persons with disabilities, traditional leaders, marginalized groups, labour unions, opposition parties, and rural communities; utilizing various engagement methods like town hall meetings, online platforms, surveys, and civic education broadcasts; and making public the submissions, feedback, and details on how public input influenced the redrafting process.
Only after completing this stage can another constitutional amendment bill be tabled – with the imprimatur of a national consensus behind it.
Nonetheless, I endorse the suggestion of the Law Association of Zambia and other stakeholders that the government should postpone any plans for constitutional amendments until after the 2026 general elections. This recommendation is also in line with the ruling party’s own pledge in its Manifesto to “establish a durable constitutional order that will catalyze the political, economic and social development of the country” and to “complete the constitutional reform agenda, anchored on a broad-based consensus among all Zambians” (United Party for National Development [UPND] Manifesto 2021-2026, page 34). The Manifesto explicitly emphasizes that “good governance involves transparency, accountability, consultation, and dialogue between the governing and the governed.”
Risks of ignoring the Court judgment – and the opportunities of complying
The UPND Manifesto contains a pledge to “respect court judgments and orders to entrench the rule of law and enhance constitutionalism.” The Constitutional Court’s judgment is a test of that commitment. In this context, it is comforting to know that the Solicitor-General, Marshall Muchende, has assured the nation that the government will comply with the judgment.
If the government ignores the judgment of the Court and public sentiment, it risks deepening cynicism towards government institutions. There are also risks that civil society and the opposition may mount public campaigns, increasing polarization, and that any future bill may be vulnerable to legal challenge – and the process declared unconstitutional again, or any resulting enactment declared unconstitutional.
Conversely, by postponing the amendment process and later undertaking consultative processes, public trust can be rebuilt – strengthening the legitimacy of both any proposed constitutional reforms and the outcome. Importantly, full compliance with the judgment of the Constitutional Court will help craft amendments that withstand changes in government and political winds – anchored in national consensus and collective ownership.
A practical roadmap: How to ensure broad-based consensus
Achieving consensus in a constitutional reform or amendment process typically requires broad agreement across different sectors of society and political institutions. There are several strategies and mechanisms that can be used to build consensus. Firstly, an inclusive and participatory process must be established, ensuring the engagement of all stakeholders – including representatives from major political parties, civil society, marginalized groups, and other relevant stakeholders – and public consultation. This is crucial for assessing the need for reform and identifying the areas of the constitution that require amendment. Secondly, the constitutional amendment procedure must be clearly defined. Historically, constitutional reform efforts in Zambia have relied heavily on the Inquiries Act, which gives executive discretion precedence over public opinion. Thirdly, the process should be guided by constitutional law experts who can provide evidence-based input. Fourthly, the goals, benefits, and implications of the proposed reform must be clearly communicated to the public. Lastly, the process should not be rushed, allowing ample time for deliberation, consultation, and revision.
Reaffirming citizenship: The importance of public participation
The issue at hand is not just about maintaining proper procedures; it also involves the humility and mutual respect necessary for democratic governance. Citizens are not typically looking for reforms that they are simply expected to approve without question. What they truly support are reforms that they have had a hand in shaping – reforms that value their opinions, their surroundings, and their future.
This is especially crucial in Zambia, a country characterized by ethnic diversity, rapid population growth, ongoing regional inequalities and, currently, political divisions. Constitutional changes cannot be one-size-fits-all; they should be a collaborative effort that incorporates various regional, cultural, and economic perspectives. Allowing the voices of the people to be heard is not only democratic but also practical and respectful. It also demonstrates a commitment to good governance, a principle that the ruling party’s Manifesto espouses.
Conclusion: From court ruling to people‑powered reform
From the Constitutional Court’s bench, the emblem of judicial authority, we now shift to the arena of citizen engagement, including civic halls, village gatherings, classrooms, radios, and homes throughout Zambia. The task before us is not just to draft a better Constitution, but to do so in a transparent, comprehensive, and inclusive manner.
The Court’s ruling on 27 June 2025 in the case of Munir Zulu and Another v Attorney-General is more than a win for the constitutional process. It is an opportunity for citizens, civil society, the opposition, government, the legislature, and the judiciary to come together in a shared effort to reform the nation. This decision challenges current stakeholders and empowers future generations to ensure that the foundational law reflects the voices of the many, not just the few.
The Government now faces a critical choice: continue with politics as usual or lead the country towards a renaissance of reform. The Constitution awaits neither autocracy nor indifference – but the will of a united and engaged people.
Let Zambia opt for the latter path; let us rebuild a constitution based on broad consensus, one that serves as a testament to participatory democracy and a commitment to our national values and principles outlined in the Constitution.
