Please Don’t Sign the Public Gathering Bill
By Godfrey Chitalu
Dear President Hakainde Hichilema,
I will break conventional op-ed protocol by simply listing my concerns after carefully reviewing the proposed Public Gathering Bill of 2026, as downloaded from the official Parliament website.
Mr President, the bill has generated genuine anxiety among ordinary citizens in its current form. With humility, allow me to share twenty concerns that many people quietly hold.
1. Defining a public gathering as three or more people feels excessively restrictive. The threshold could reasonably have been set much higher.
2. The requirement for notification risks becoming indirect permission, especially if the process relies heavily on paperwork, which would also place unnecessary strain on citizens and public institutions.
3. The requirement for five days’ notice could effectively kill spontaneous democratic expression, like when students wish to mobilise quickly in support of a legitimate cause.
4. Police discretion under the Bill remains too broad and insufficiently defined.
5. The phrase “reasonable belief” is dangerously vague and open to abuse.
6. Restrictions based on “business interference” could be used to suppress protests almost anywhere.
7. Exemptions favouring politicians create an “Animal Farm” situation in which some citizens appear more equal than others.
8. Ordinary citizens seem far more regulated than public officials.
9. Peaceful gatherings risk becoming criminalised.
10. Fear of arrest may discourage civic participation altogether.
11. Selective enforcement remains possible, especially under future governments that may not exercise restraint.
12. Organisers may feel exposed and vulnerable through mandatory public registers.
13. Future ministers could quietly expand restrictions through subsidiary regulations.
14. Appeals processes may move too slowly to assist urgent civic actions.
15. Police immunity provisions weaken accountability.
16. The Bill leaves “restricted areas” insufficiently defined, creating uncertainty and suspicion.
17. Postponements could be used strategically to neutralise protests without outright banning them.
18. There appears to be limited independent oversight over police decisions.
19. The Bill may unintentionally contradict the constitutional freedoms it claims to protect.
20. The practicality of the Bill raises serious concerns. In a nation of nearly twenty million people, requiring notice for gatherings of three or more citizens could generate hundreds of thousands of possible notifications every month. No administrative system in the world can realistically manage that consistently without resorting to selective enforcement.
In conclusion, Mr President, democracy requires freedom with responsibility. With love and respect, many citizens simply ask that this Bill be reconsidered carefully, openly, and constitutionally before it becomes law. Even though Parliament may have passed it, please do not sign this bill.
The author writes as and when compelled.
+260977466284
goddychitty@gmail.com