Civil Society Divided: Consortium Seeks Voice in Zambia’s Constitutional Court Petition

By Daily News Reporter

Acting Chairperson Solomon Ngoma of the Consortium of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) leaned into the microphone with conviction. His message was clear: Zambia’s constitutional reform process has been more inclusive than critics claim, and the voices of thousands of citizens who participated must not be silenced.

The Consortium — a coalition of democracy and peace building groups — has formally applied to join the petition filed by the Oasis Forum in the Constitutional Court. The Forum argues that the reform process was flawed and lacked inclusivity. But Ngoma and his colleagues insist that narrative is misleading.

The controversy traces back to March 2025, when the government announced its intention to amend the Constitution through Bill 7. Civil society groups, including the Consortium, initially raised concerns about limited consultations. Yet rather than disengage, they pressed for a reset.

“We consistently advocated for the withdrawal of Bill 7,” Ngoma explained. “This was done to allow a fresh start, with broader public consultations that would ensure the process is people-driven.”

Since then, the Consortium says it has worked tirelessly to mobilize citizens. Submissions were made in Lusaka and across all provinces, with thousands of ordinary Zambians contributing their views to the Technical Committee.

For Ngoma, the heart of the matter is accountability. “At this stage, both the Consortium and the many citizens who participated expect the report to be released. That expectation should not be blocked by court actions from those who chose not to take part in the consultation process,” he said.

The Consortium argues that the Technical Committee — composed of civil society leaders, lawyers, and professionals — is credible and representative. They believe its forthcoming report will demonstrate that public participation has been genuine and widespread.

Not all organizations agree. The Law Association of Zambia and the NGOCC have petitioned the court, questioning the legitimacy of the process. Ngoma criticized their stance, noting that some of their members served 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.

The Consortium insists that civil society should not be hierarchical. “In civil society, there is no bigger brother or smaller brother. No group is more important or more legitimate than another,” Ngoma declared.

The Consortium has signaled its readiness to apply for a police permit to march to State House in support of the constitutional review process. For them, the issue is not just legal but symbolic — a demonstration of solidarity with citizens who took part.

And speaking at the same press conference in Lusaka Emmanuel Muyunda, Executive Director of SACCORD, echoed this sentiment. “Civil society must represent the people’s voices, not just a few individuals. Our participation ensures that all Zambians who submitted views are respected,” he said.

Muyunda emphasized that protests are legitimate in a democracy, but must remain peaceful and lawful.

Benard Uteka, Secretary-General of Community Action Against Political Violence (CAAPOV), cautioned against misinformation. He recalled rumors that Bill 7 would extend presidential terms or remove the 50% +1 requirement — claims that proved false.

“Civil society and media must provide accurate information and allow the executive to present its report before citizens critique it,” Uteka said.

The Consortium’s membership spans organizations such as AIPAC, ZCLU, SACCORD, GEARS Initiative, MUDE, CAAPOV, and the Anti-Political Violence Association of Zambia. Together, they work to promote democracy, human rights, and peacebuilding in Zambia and the wider Southern African region.

For now, the Constitutional Court has yet to decide whether the Consortium will be admitted as an interested party in the Oasis Forum petition. But the debate has already revealed deep divisions within civil society — between those who chose to participate in the reform process and those who stayed away.

(C) CopyRight Reseved