FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2025 - The Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) acknowledges the appointment of the Technical Committee (TC) on the Constitution Review as a process grounded in constitutional law under Articles 92 (1), (2f) and (2j) of the Constitution. However, JCTR remains deeply concerned that the process, as currently constituted, is flawed and risks undermining the credibility and inclusiveness required for a truly people-driven Constitution. Our concerns focus on four key areas: the composition of the Technical Committee, the consultation process, risks to democratic consensus, and the timing of the constitutional amendment process.

1.    Concerns with the Technical Committee

JCTR notes with concern that the Committee’s composition does not adequately reflect the diversity of Zambian society. This raises two challenges: members cannot be held accountable to their respective organisations, and questions arise regarding the competence and suitability of some appointed members.

Additionally, while the Committee has been given a broad scope of work, its Terms of Reference (ToRs) remain narrow and restrictive. This contradiction echoes concerns previously raised about Bill 7, which limited genuine constitutional reform. The Committee has also been allocated only three weeks to hold nationwide consultations — an unrealistic timeframe that calls into question the breadth and meaningfulness of engagement.

Furthermore, the ToRs appear to focus more on political matters than on issues of development and human rights. 

2.    Faulty Consultation Process

The current approach of collecting submissions through Provincial Headquarters is inherently selective and excludes many voices, especially at the grassroots. This contradicts the stated intention of the process: “…to strengthen constitutional democracy, enhance citizen participation, and ensure that the supreme law of the land reflects the aspirations, diversity, and evolving governance needs of the Zambian people” (Press Release by the Secretary to the Cabinet). A Town Hall system would have been more inclusive and participatory.

Moreover, the current approach does not ask Zambians whether they want their supreme law amended in the first place. Instead, the ToRs prescribe areas of focus and invite submissions without prior consent or justification. This undermines the principle of a people-driven process and silences broader constitutional concerns.

3.    Risks to Democratic Consensus

Genuine dialogue and consensus-building must remain central. Stakeholders should be free to raise issues beyond the ToRs, including proposals such as the expansion of the Bill of Rights.

There is also a risk of elitism in the ongoing discussions. Many Zambians do not fully understand their current Constitution, and insufficient efforts have been made to promote civic understanding or engagement. Given Zambia’s largely rural population —characterised by high poverty and low literacy levels — it is essential that no one is left behind in shaping the country’s supreme law.

4.    The Question of Timing

The current process appears rushed and seemingly tied to the electoral calendar. JCTR emphasises that the Constitution must not be subjected to political expediency. It supersedes elections and must be treated as a foundational document deserving adequate time and careful consideration.

A credible and inclusive process requires sufficient time for broad consultation, drafting, and review to ensure legitimacy and national ownership.

Recommendations

Building on the challenges highlighted above, JCTR proposes the following measures to enhance the legitimacy, inclusivity, and credibility of Zambia’s constitutional reform process:

I.    Recomposition of the Technical Committee

•    Broaden representation: Ensure members reflect Zambia’s ethnic, regional, gender, disability, and civil society diversity to build legitimacy and accountability.

•    Institutional accountability: Members should be nominated by their organisations (churches, unions, NGOs, academia, etc.) rather than appointed individually, to remain answerable to constituencies.

•    Guiding legislation: Adopt provisions similar to the National Constitutional Conference Act No. 19 of 2007, outlining duration, security of tenure, bill drafting powers, and competence criteria to promote transparency and legitimacy.

II.    Clarify and Expand the Mandate

•    Align ToRs with scope: Revise the Terms of Reference to match the broad constitutional reform mandate and begin by seeking consent from the Zambian people to amend the Constitution.

•    Avoid pitfalls of Bill 7: Allow consideration of all constitutional provisions, not only pre-selected sections.

•    Permit flexibility: Enable stakeholders to raise issues beyond the ToRs, including proposals such as expanding the Bill of Rights.

III.    Inclusive Consultation Process

•    Town Hall system: Replace or complement Provincial Headquarters submissions with open Town Hall meetings across districts to capture grassroots voices.

•    Community outreach: Use radio, local languages, and civic education campaigns to reach rural populations.

•    Civil society facilitation: Collaborate with NGOs and faith-based organisations to mobilise participation and ensure inclusivity.

IV.    Safeguarding Democratic Consensus

•    Consensus-building forums: Create multi-stakeholder platforms (civil society, political parties, traditional leaders) for continuous dialogue beyond the Committee’s work.

•    Independent oversight: Establish an independent monitoring body to track inclusivity, transparency, and fairness throughout the process.

V.    Timing and Credibility

•    Decouple from elections: Emphasise that constitutional reform must not be rushed to fit electoral timelines.

•    Phased approach: Allocate adequate time for consultation, drafting, and review before submission to Parliament.

•    Public education: Conduct sustained civic education campaigns to enable citizens to understand and meaningfully contribute.

VI.    Participation

•    Promote substantive participation: Encourage conscious contributions from citizens that reflect their experiences and aspirations. As the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace affirms, “Participation is a duty to be fulfilled consciously by all, with responsibility and with a view to the common good” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 189).

This participation is only possible when the principle of subsidiarity is upheld—where all stakeholders are allowed to contribute fully within their capacities. The Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno reminds us that higher organs of society must not absorb the roles of subordinate ones [XI, Quadragesimo Anno: ASS 23 (1913), 203].

Conclusion

In sum, JCTR calls for the recomposition of the Committee to ensure diversity, institutional accountability, and legislative clarity; the expansion of its mandate to allow genuine reform; the adoption of inclusive town hall consultations; the safeguarding of democratic consensus through transparency and dialogue; and the allocation of sufficient time to decouple the process from electoral expediency.

Zambia deserves a Constitution that reflects the aspirations of all its citizens. JCTR therefore calls for a more inclusive, transparent, and participatory process that prioritises national consensus over political timelines. Only through such an approach can Zambia achieve a Constitution that stands the test of time and truly serves the common good.

___________________________________________________________________

Issued by: Rev. Dr. Boyd Kapyunga Nyirenda, S.J. – Deputy Director

For further clarifications, contact the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection (JCTR) on 0955290410, or email info@jctr.org.zm and admin@jctr.org.zm. Address: Martin Mwamba Road, Plot 3813, Olympia Park, Lusaka. Postal: P.O. Box 37774, Lusaka – Zambia.