By 
A break in the ranks of Civil Society Organisations may be in the offing as splinter groups whose members are already serving in the Technical Committee on Constitution Review appointed by President Hakainde Hichilema have expressed strong reservations on moves by the Oasis Forum to rubbish their committee assignments.
To drive home its anger, the coalition has applied to the Constitutional Court as an interested party in the petition filed by the Oasis Forum challenging the legitimacy of the current Constitution Amendment process.
Speaking for the group, Solomon Ngoma said the application was formally submitted on Monday, and that it was the organisation’s belief that the court would allow them to present their perspective so that it could offer a balanced and well-informed decision, reflecting the full breadth of public contributions.
Speaking at a media briefing held at Mika Hotel, Kabulonga in Lusaka on Monday, Ngoma acknowledged and the right of the Oasis Forum to bring the matter to court.
“In the same spirit, the Consortium also asserts its right to participate in the proceedings,” he said.
He added that the eight Civil Society Organisations seeking to join the case were no junior players as “there is no bigger brother” in the advocacy space.
“Our Consortium of Civil Society Organisations has been actively engaged in the Constitutional reform process since March 2025, when the government announced its intentions to amend the Constitution,” Ngoma stated.
He noted that while the coalition had its own reservations regarding the earlier process that led to government introducing Bill 7—particularly regarding the limited consultations at the beginning—it nonetheless chose to support the initiative.
Ngoma explained that the coalition supported the reforms in hopes of strengthening governance and addressing ambiguities and inconsistencies that had long existed in the Constitution.
“Working together with other civil society coalitions outside our Consortium, we met with the Republican President and successfully advocated for the deferment of the Bill. This was done to allow for the establishment of a Technical Committee that would facilitate broader public consultations,” Ngoma said.
He stated that organisations such as the Law Association of Zambia and NGOCC, who were also part of these engagements, had now petitioned the court, arguing that the process was not inclusive and that certain members should not have been appointed to the Committee.
Ngoma said his group finds this position puzzling because some of the organisations allegedly raising concerns had members—and even former members—who were appointed to the Technical Committee.
“It is surprising that they now question the ability of their own representatives to gather and articulate the views of ordinary citizens. Their stance suggests that the process would only be considered people-driven if their preferred individuals were on the Committee,” he added.
The coalition reportedly comprises the Zambia Civil Liberties Union, Southern African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes, Governance Elections Advocacy and Research Services Initiative Zambia, Centre for Peace, Research and Advocacy, Measures of Justice, Democracy Foundation, Community Action Against Political Violence, Anti-Political Violence Association of Zambia, and the Acton Institute for Policy Research and Analysis.
Comments