Consortium Enters Court Fight
By Francis Maingaila ♥️
Lusaka, Zambia24 — (24-11-2025) -- The Consortium of Civil Society Organisations has formally applied to join the petition filed by the Oasis Forum in the Constitutional Court, arguing that claims the constitutional reform process was not inclusive are misleading and that the court should consider the contributions of citizens who actively participated in consultations across Zambia.
Speaking on behalf of the Consortium at the media briefing, Acting Chairperson Solomon Ngoma said the organisation has been actively engaged in the constitutional reform process since March 2025, when the Government announced its intention to amend the Constitution through Bill 7.
“While we had reservations regarding the early stages of the process, particularly the limited consultations, we chose to support the initiative because we believed it would strengthen governance and address long-standing ambiguities and inconsistencies in the Constitution,” Ngoma said.
He explained that the Consortium, alongside other civil society organisations, met with the Republican President and consistently advocated for the withdrawal of Bill 7.
“This was done to allow a fresh start, with broader public consultations that would ensure the process is people-driven,” Ngoma said.
Participation and public submissions
Ngoma said the Consortium and its member organisations actively encouraged citizens to participate in the process.
“We made submissions in Lusaka and in all provinces, and thousands of citizens across the country submitted their views to the Technical Committee. Our role was to raise awareness, guide participation, and ensure that the voices of ordinary citizens were heard,” he said.
He added that the Technical Committee has received thousands of submissions, which will form the basis of recommendations for constitutional amendments.
“At this stage, both the Consortium and the many citizens who participated expect the report to be released. This will allow the public to assess whether their contributions were truly reflected,” Ngoma said.
Criticism of petitioners
Ngoma criticised some organisations, including the Law Association of Zambia and the NGOCC, for petitioning the court while having members, and even former members, on the Technical Committee.
“It is surprising that groups who were part of the process are now questioning the ability of their own representatives to gather and articulate the views of citizens,” he said.
He argued that these organisations had chosen not to actively participate in consultations, yet now claim that the process is not people-driven.
“It now appears that those who stayed away from the process are the ones claiming the process is illegitimate. Their message seems to be that the process is only legitimate if their preferred individuals were part of the Technical Committee,” Ngoma said.
Equal standing in civil society
Ngoma emphasised that the Consortium respects the right of the Oasis Forum to take legal action but asserted that the Consortium also has the right to present its perspective in court.
“In civil society, there is no bigger brother or smaller brother. No group is more important or more legitimate than another. We stand on equal footing with all registered organisations, whether they support the process or not,” he said.
He added that the Consortium is prepared to apply for a police permit to march to State House in support of the constitutional review process, if necessary.
Ngoma concluded by stressing that releasing the Technical Committee’s report is essential for transparency and accountability.
“Citizens who participated expect their voices to be heard. That expectation should not be blocked by court actions from those who chose not to take part in the consultation process,” he said.
Ngoma highlighted that the committee collecting public views is credible and representative, including experienced civil society leaders, lawyers, and professionals.
He said constitutional amendments belong to all Zambians, not just a select few.
“Civil society should focus on objective guidance, not politics,” Ngoma said.
“The committee is legitimate, and public participation demonstrates growing engagement in governance.”
The consortium is composed of the Acton Institute for Policy Analyses Center (AIPAC), the Zambian Civil Liberties Union (ZCLU), the Southern African Centre for Constructive Resolution of Disputes (SACCORD), the Governance Elections Advocacy Research Services (GEARS) Initiative (MRIA), the Center for Peace Research and Advocacy, the Measures of Justice and Democracy Foundation (MUDE), Community Action Against Political Violence (CAAPOV), and the Anti-Political Violence Association of Zambia.
These organizations work together to promote democracy and human rights. They also focus on peacebuilding and preventing political violence in Zambia and the Southern African region.
The Constitutional Court has yet to decide whether the Consortium will be admitted as an interested party in the Oasis Forum petition.
And speaking at the same briefing Emmanuel Muyunda, Executive Director of the Southern African Centre for Constructive Resolution of Disputes (SACCORD), explained why his organization joined a legal case challenging claims about the constitution review committee.
“We have monitored this process from day one, issuing statements and providing guidance to ensure transparency and inclusivity,” Muyunda said.
“Civil society must represent the people’s voices, not just a few individuals. Our participation ensures that all Zambians who submitted views are respected.”
Muyunda emphasized that protests are legitimate in a democracy, but they must be peaceful and lawful.
“If others choose to protest, that is within their rights, and we can also exercise ours.
The important thing is to respect citizens who made submissions and maintain the credibility of the process.”
Benard Uteka, Secretary-General of Community Action Against Political Violence (CAAPOV), stressed the need to distinguish between constitutional amendments and reforms.
He warned that protests before government proposals are released could spread misinformation.
“Before Bill 7 was published, rumors suggested it would extend presidential terms or remove the 50% +1 requirement.
These claims were false. Civil society and media must provide accurate information and allow the executive to present its report before citizens critique it,” Uteka said.
The briefing comes amid ongoing debates over Bill 7, with some groups seeking protests to influence the amendment process. Civil society leaders called for patience, respect for the law, and dialogue to ensure a transparent and inclusive constitutional review.
Comments
Post a Comment