By Brian Matambo | Lusaka 

Constitutional lawyer John Sangwa, SC, has delivered the strongest legal rebuke yet to the government’s push for constitutional amendments, stating in a comprehensive analysis that Bill No. 7 of 2025 “has no legal existence” and cannot be debated, revived, or acted upon by Parliament. His statement has sharpened an already volatile national debate and placed fresh pressure on the administration to explain why it continues to advance a process he says is void at law.   

In the 16-page document, Sangwa argues that the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 27 June 2025 did not merely interrupt the Bill but extinguished it entirely. According to him, every step taken before the ruling was declared unconstitutional and therefore void, leaving no Bill before the House and no legal basis for Parliament to continue treating it as active. 

He traces the constitutional breakdown to the government’s decision earlier this year to announce sweeping amendments without any national consultation or a legally established review mechanism. Within days of the President’s surprise announcement on International Women’s Day, the Minister of Justice confirmed that a draft Bill had already been prepared. Citizens responded by filing a Constitutional Court petition, arguing that the process violated the people’s right to participate in constitutional reform. 

Government pushed ahead anyway. It gazetted the Bill in May and presented it for first reading in June, even as the Court was yet to rule. The President later attempted to defuse public tension by “deferring” the Bill on 26 June. But Sangwa says that deferment became meaningless the very next day when the Court delivered its ruling. 

“The Court did not suspend the process. It invalidated it. From that moment, Bill 7 ceased to exist in law,” he writes. 

Sangwa notes that the President’s subsequent appointment of a Technical Committee in October confirmed this legal reality, because the committee’s mandate is to restart the process entirely, conduct public consultations, and produce a new Bill only if justified. He stresses that until the committee completes its work and a fresh draft is gazetted for the mandatory 30-day public notice, there is nothing before the nation to discuss. 

He also argues that attempts by the Speaker of the National Assembly to treat Bill 7 as still alive are without effect because Parliament cannot debate a Bill that the Court has already nullified. In his view, any continued reference to Bill 7 is outside constitutional boundaries. 

Beyond the legal deficiencies, Sangwa warns against reopening the Constitution months before a general election. He describes the 2016 Constitution as a bipartisan national settlement and cautions that amending it now risks destabilising the electoral environment, undermining institutional neutrality, and inviting public suspicion. 

“A Constitution cannot change with every election cycle or at the convenience of whichever party forms government,” he writes, adding that urgent constitutional change is only justified in the presence of national crisis, institutional collapse, or systemic failure. Zambia, he says, faces none of these conditions. 

According to Sangwa, constitutional stability is essential in an election year. Amending foundational rules on the eve of a national vote threatens public confidence and creates the perception of partisan advantage. He warns that if a sitting government establishes the precedent of altering the Constitution before elections, future administrations may follow, leading to a cycle of manipulation and a breakdown of constitutional authority. 

The statement has added weight to the demands of civic groups, church organisations, and legal experts who insist that the only legitimate step forward is to restart the process lawfully, widen consultations, and prioritise the long-neglected Bill of Rights. 

His analysis lands just days after a tense exchange at State House where the Oasis Forum urged President Hakainde Hichilema to withdraw Bill 7 entirely and begin a fresh process grounded in legality and public participation. While the President appeared receptive in front of the cameras, insiders say he later told the delegation in private that he would not halt the Bill and advised them to “go to court” or “lobby MPs” if they wanted it stopped. The contrast between the Court’s ruling, Sangwa’s legal position, and the President’s determination to proceed has deepened public concern that Zambia is now confronting a constitutional impasse with significant implications for the 2026 elections.