President Hakainde Hichilema has declined to assent to the Public Gatherings Bill, describing it as undemocratic and not aligned with the public interest. The decision has drawn attention across legal and governance circles, with some observers noting that the bill contained more progressive elements than the colonial-era law it was intended to replace. The development has placed renewed focus on Zambia’s long-standing debate over how best to balance public order with constitutional freedoms. It also highlights the political sensitivity surrounding reforms that directly affect civic space and the right to assembly. The bill now returns to Parliament for further reconsideration following the President’s reservations.
The Public Gatherings Bill was among several pieces of legislation passed by the National Assembly during the final days of its most recent sitting. Parliamentary sources confirmed that President Hichilema returned the bill on 29 May, citing concerns that prevented him from granting assent. The legislation had been introduced on 23 April 2026 by Attorney-General M.D. Kabesha as part of efforts to modernize Zambia’s public order framework. It was designed to repeal and replace the Public Order Act of 1955, a colonial-era statute that has long been criticized for granting wide discretionary powers to law enforcement authorities. The reform was intended to reflect a more democratic approach to managing public gatherings.
At the core of the proposed law was a shift from a permit-based system to a notification-based framework. Under the bill, organisers of public assemblies involving three or more people would have been required to notify an authorised officer at least five days in advance. The notification would include key details such as location, purpose, expected number of participants and contact information for organisers. The officer would then be required to acknowledge receipt within 24 hours and issue a decision within three days. A key innovation in the bill was a deemed-approval clause, which meant that failure by authorities to respond within the prescribed timeframe would automatically allow the gathering to proceed.
This provision marked a significant departure from the current legal framework under the Public Order Act, where police inaction can effectively block public gatherings. The proposed system aimed to reduce administrative delays and limit arbitrary decision making by authorities. It also sought to strengthen the presumption in favour of the right to assemble peacefully. However, despite these changes, the bill retained a structured role for law enforcement in managing public order. This balance between regulation and freedom became one of the most debated aspects of the legislation.
The bill also outlined specific and limited grounds under which authorities could restrict a gathering. These included conflicts with prior notifications, unsuitable venues, designated protected areas and situations where there was a reasonable belief of imminent public disorder or safety risks. Any restriction would have required written justification to be provided at least three days in advance. Organisers would also have been given an opportunity to respond or adjust their plans to address concerns raised by authorities. Where corrective measures were implemented, restrictions would be lifted, and alternative arrangements would be considered if original dates had already passed.
In addition to procedural reforms, the legislation introduced provisions aimed at addressing political fairness during electoral periods. It removed certain exemptions for ministers, Members of Parliament, mayors and councillors during elections, active campaigns and periods following the dissolution of Parliament. This was intended to ensure a level playing field between ruling party officials and opposition candidates during politically sensitive periods. The bill also explicitly granted media organisations the right to monitor public gatherings, reinforcing transparency and public accountability. These provisions were seen by some analysts as efforts to strengthen democratic practice during election cycles.
Despite these reforms, the bill attracted strong criticism from civil society groups, legal experts and sections of the public. Critics raised concerns about the broad definition of what constituted a public gathering, arguing that it could be interpreted too widely in practice. Others questioned the continued involvement of police in the notification process, warning that it could still allow for restrictive enforcement. There were also concerns that penalties for non-compliance, even if relatively modest, could be used to discourage lawful assemblies. Some commentators went as far as arguing that the bill could have a chilling effect on constitutional freedoms.
By refusing to sign the bill, President Hichilema has aligned himself with these concerns and described the legislation as inconsistent with democratic principles. His decision effectively sends the bill back to Parliament, where lawmakers will need to reassess its provisions and address the reservations raised by the executive. The move signals ongoing tension between reforming outdated legal frameworks and ensuring that new laws fully meet constitutional standards. It also underscores the complexity of modernizing public order legislation in a way that satisfies both security considerations and civil liberties. For now, the Public Order Act of 1955 remains in force as Zambia continues its search for a more balanced and democratic replacement.