An Enlarged but Weakened Parliament? Zambia’s Proposed Constitutional Amendments

The Zambian government’s plan to amend the Constitution to, inter alia, enlarge the National Assembly and increase the number of Members of Parliament nominated by the President, has been presented as a necessary move toward broader representation and addressing technical gaps in the current framework but has sparked intense national debate. Amid concerns over transparency, political motivations, and the limited scope for public engagement, critics question both the substance of the reforms and the process leading to their introduction. In this piece, Cephas Lumina analyses the contested proposals and their broader implications for democratic governance in Zambia.

Introduction

During the opening of the Fourth Session of Zambia’s Thirteenth National Assembly on 13 September 2024, President Hakainde Hichilema emphasized the importance of the Constitution for Zambia’s identity. He acknowledged the lack of consensus on the national document and highlighted the need for constitutional reform to better reflect citizens’ aspirations. The government was committed to addressing gaps in the Constitution through a cost-effective and efficient process, building on previous work to avoid duplication. The President also warned that certain gaps in the Constitution—which he did not specify—could result in a situation where the country could go without a general election for eight or nine years. Just a year earlier, the President had reassured the nation that his government had no plans to amend the Constitution and that he had no personal interest in altering it.

The President's comments attracted strong criticism from various quarters, with one commentator suggesting that these hinted at potential constitutional amendments. The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) clarified that while there may be gaps in the Constitution, there were no issues regarding the requirement to hold elections every five years.

These announcements generated public debate regarding the opacity of the process, as well as the necessity and urgency of the proposed changes.

In early March 2025, during an event marking International Women's Day, Hichilema announced that the nation had agreed to amend the Constitution before the 2026 elections to increase women's participation in public positions and elections. A few days later, during the National Youth Day celebrations, he claimed that the country's youth had also agreed on amending the Constitution to enable more young people, women, and individuals with disabilities to assume key decision-making roles. These announcements generated public debate regarding the opacity of the process, as well as the necessity and urgency of the proposed changes.

In a statement to the National Assembly on 26 March 2025, the Minister of Justice, Princess Kasune, outlined the government's proposed amendments to the country’s Constitution. The proposals include altering the composition of the National Assembly by increasing the number of constituencies and the number of nominated Members of Parliament (MPs) from the current eight to a number to be “provided for in an Act of Parliament” (and later set at ten), and revising a series of electoral procedures to improve representation and efficiency.

(...) [T]he government intended to focus only on what she referred to as “non-contentious issues” to address key gaps identified in the Constitution (...).

The Minister stressed that a thorough revision of the Constitution required broad-based consensus among all Zambians on the constitutional reform agenda, which is both costly and time-consuming. Therefore, the government intended to focus only on what she referred to as “non-contentious issues” to address key gaps identified in the Constitution, although she did not indicate who had identified those gaps. Constitutional amendment proposals to that effect would be published in the Government Gazette thirty days before their introduction in the National Assembly. The Minister argued that this approach was not only cost-effective but also consultative.

Furthermore, the Minister presented a proposed roadmap for the enactment of the proposals whereby the amendment Bill would be introduced in the National Assembly on 24 June 2025 and the third reading scheduled for 25 July 2025. On 23 May, the government published the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill, No. 7 of 2025 in the Gazette for “general information.”

While the changes are framed as efforts to enhance democratic representation and inclusivity, they raise important questions about democratic governance, executive overreach, electoral integrity, and the erosion of parliamentary independence.

The proposed reforms have sparked significant debate among political analysts, civil society organizations, and the public. While the changes are framed as efforts to enhance democratic representation and inclusivity, they raise important questions about democratic governance, executive overreach, electoral integrity, and the erosion of parliamentary independence. This article examines proposals to change the composition of the National Assembly and evaluates their implications for Zambia’s political and constitutional landscape.

Changing the Composition of the National Assembly

Under the Constitution, the National Assembly consists of 156 members directly elected based on a simple majority vote under the first-past-the-post system; up to eight members nominated by the President;  the Vice-President; the Speaker; and the First and Second Deputy Speakers. The Bill includes sweeping reforms to this composition, altogether increasing the total number of MPs from the current 164 to up to 256—which some see as a strategy for the President to secure control of a two-thirds majority—and changing the process for filling vacant parliamentary seats.

Mixed-member Proportional Representation Model

First, the Bill proposes introducing a mixed-member proportional representation model. This hybrid system aims to combine direct constituency-based representation with party-list proportional representation, reportedly to improve inclusivity and reflect a broader cross-section of the electorate. Under the proposal, a portion of seats in the National Assembly would be reserved for women (up to 20), youth (up to 12), and persons with disabilities (up to 3). These seats will be distributed to political parties in proportion to the total number of votes obtained by a political party on “the proportional representation ballot”.

These reserved seats would account for less than 15% of the total, a number lower than the existing 18% representation for women alone in the current National Assembly (...).

The proposed system to select the representatives empowers party leaders, and leaves little room for the public to directly influence the list of candidates belonging to those groups, arguably constraining accountability mechanisms. These reserved seats would account for less than 15% of the total, a number lower than the existing 18% representation for women alone in the current National Assembly and raising questions about the practical impact on representation. Some view the inclusion of the proposals regarding women, youth and persons with disabilities as a tactic to persuade those groups to support the Bill under the pretext that it will advance their interests.

Increase in Constituency-Based Seats

The Bill proposes an increase in the number of constituency-based seats in the National Assembly from 156 to 211, in addition to the reserved seats for women, youth, and persons with disabilities. The proposal is reportedly based on a report of the government-organised Electoral Reform Technical Committee, which has not been published for public scrutiny, raising questions about transparency and inclusiveness of the process. Some also find this expansion difficult to justify amid significant economic constraints in Zambia and warn against the risk of arbitrarily increasing the size of the National Assembly without a legitimate basis, which could leave the electoral system vulnerable to manipulation by the ruling administration.

Presidentially Nominated MPs

In addition to directly elected MPs, the Constitution empowers the President to nominate up to 8 MPs if the President considers it necessary to enhance the representation of special interests, skills, or gender in the National Assembly. Even though the relevance of this provision has been questioned over time, especially during constitutional reform processes, with some advocating for its removal or a significant reduction in the number of nominated MPs, the Bill proposes to increase the number of nominated MPs from the current limit of eight to ten.

(...) [S]uch an increase risks creating a group of legislators loyal to the appointing authority rather than to the electorate, making them unaccountable to citizens (...).

While the stated intention behind this proposal is to guarantee the representation of marginalized groups and to incorporate specialized expertise into the National Assembly, presidential nominations have often been used to further political alliances, party loyalty, or patronage. Moreover, in view of the proposal to allocate dedicated seats for women, youth and persons with disabilities, the need to use an increased number of appointed MPs to ensure representation of vulnerable groups is arguably less imperative. Furthermore, many argue that this proposal does not align with democratic principles and the separation of powers. For instance, eleven civil society organizations stated that the proposal reduces the National Assembly’s independence, concentrates power in the hands of the President, and is inconsistent with democratic constitutional reforms and representative democracy. According to these organizations, such an increase risks creating a group of legislators loyal to the appointing authority rather than to the electorate, making them unaccountable to citizens, and the National Assembly should consist entirely of elected representatives accountable to the people.

Cancellation of By-Elections

The Bill also introduces changes to how vacant parliamentary seats are filled. It proposes allowing political parties to internally fill vacant seats, cancelling the current rules which require by-elections. Crucially, the proposals provide that vacancies that occur within 180 days of a general election shall not be filled—therefore leaving constituencies unrepresented for up to six months. This proposal is framed as a cost-saving measure and a way to ensure continuity in governance. However, LAZ and others argue that it undermines the right of voters to choose their representatives and concentrates power in the party leadership, weakening accountability and democratic legitimacy. Concerns have also been raised that the change could enable well-resourced individuals or groups to pressure candidates into resigning, thereby undermining electoral competition and depriving opposing parties of representation.

A Weakened National Assembly?  

In combination, these proposals appear to be aimed at ensuring efficiency, but would weaken the National Assembly vis-à-vis the presidency, reducing the effectiveness of checks and balances.

Under the proposals, the President would have the power to prorogue the National Assembly “in consultation” with the Speaker. Crucially, the President would also have the power to dissolve parliament if it fails to “objectively and reasonably carry out its legislative function”. In combination, these proposals appear to be aimed at ensuring efficiency, but would weaken the National Assembly vis-à-vis the presidency, reducing the effectiveness of checks and balances. Although the power of prorogation is subject to consultation with the Speaker, this is unlikely to impose effective constraints. Similarly, while the Constitutional Court must determine whether the conditions for the dissolution of parliament exist, the mere threat of dissolution could weaken the capacity of the legislature to effectively check the presidency. Moreover, the involvement of the Court in such a politically sensitive matter, which must be decided within seven days, could undermine its credibility.  

A Fundamentally Flawed Process

As noted above, the proposed constitutional amendments have attracted much criticism concerning both the process adopted by the government and the content of the proposals. Critics, such as  LAZ and the Zambia Conference of Catholic Bishops, have argued that the process of developing the proposed amendments lacked inclusivity and transparency with limited public participation and stakeholder engagement. In fact, the Bill was published in the Gazette for the public’s general information, but without any clear process for submission of public inputs before its introduction in the National Assembly, and the government has also not provided any information regarding its drafting process. While the roadmap presented by the government envisioned a thirty-day consultation period for the Bill, this was rather a formal timeframe which did not provide for any meaningful engagement.

There have been additional concerns over the speed and opacity of the legislative process, including the limited timeframe for parliamentary debate and public scrutiny (...).

Some also view the amendments as politically driven, seeking to benefit the ruling party rather than reflecting national consensus. There have been additional concerns over the speed and opacity of the legislative process, including the limited timeframe for parliamentary debate and public scrutiny as reflected in the roadmap. Additionally, many have called for the postponement of constitutional amendments until after the August 2026 elections, arguing that implementing them beforehand would give an undue advantage to the ruling party.

Generating consensus is crucial in a polarized political environment to ensure credibility and legitimacy. The proposed twenty-day period for the parliamentary committee deliberation, which is unlikely to include robust mechanisms for public and stakeholder input, is inadequate for meaningful consensus-building considering the complexity of the issues involved.

What is Next?

Despite facing widespread opposition, the government is determined to move forward with its proposed constitutional amendments. The Minister of Justice has been traveling around the country to consult with traditional leaders and other stakeholders to seek their backing. According to the government's roadmap, the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill will be presented to the National Assembly on 24 June. A parliamentary committee will review the Bill from 26 June to 15 July and present its findings to the National Assembly on 17 July. Subsequently, the Bill will be up for a second reading on 22 July and a third reading on 25 July 2025. While the President’s coalition currently holds 82 seats in Parliament, the Bill needs the support of at least 111 members of the National Assembly to pass. It remains uncertain whether the government has enough support to reach this threshold.

Cephas Lumina is a Professor of Constitutional and International Human Rights Law, an Advocate of the High Court of Zambia, and a member of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. He teaches, among other university courses, Constitution-Making in Africa, Constitutional Law, and Constitutional and Human Rights Litigation.

♦ ♦ ♦ 

Suggested citation: Cephas Lumina, ‘An Enlarged but Weakened Parliament? Zambia’s Proposed Constitutional Amendments’, ConstitutionNet, International IDEA, 20 June 2025, https://constitutionnet.org/news/voices/enlarged-weakened-parliament-zambias-proposed-constitutional-amendments

Click here for updates on constitutional developments in Zambia.