Supreme Court of Ghana Prohibits Chiefs from Endorsing Political Candidates, Allows Policy Praise
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Ghana has ruled that chiefs endorsing political candidates or parties is unconstitutional. However, the court clarified that chiefs are allowed to commend and praise a candidate’s policies without violating the Constitution.
Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, author of the court’s judgment in November 2022, emphasized that this ruling aligns with the role of chiefs as advocates for the welfare and interests of their communities. Taking sides in a partisan political contest by endorsing specific candidates or parties goes against the constitution.
The case was initiated by legal practitioner Elorm Kwame Gorni against the Attorney General, seeking an interpretation of the term “active party politics” stated in Article 276(1) of the Ghanaian constitution. This provision prohibits chiefs from engaging in active party politics, requiring any chief seeking election to Parliament to abdicate their traditional position.
The Attorney General argued that the case did not necessitate the court’s interpretation, as the term “active” is clear and unambiguous. The AG maintained that a chief’s endorsement of a candidate for elective political office, without further involvement in party politics, does not violate the constitution. Chiefs, like all citizens, have the right to freedom of speech, expression, thought, conscience, and belief.
However, the Supreme Court concluded that the phrase “active party politics” requires interpretation to define its precise boundaries. Justice Kulendi emphasized the need to establish clear guidelines for such participation.
Regarding chiefs and politics, Justice Kulendi recognized the elevated position chiefs hold in society and their influential role in governance and community development. Although chiefs are not considered public officers, the constitution disqualifies individuals convicted of offenses involving fraud, dishonesty, or moral turpitude from assuming the role of chiefs.
Justice Kulendi explained, “It is on account of the exceptional social and public status of chiefs that although chiefs are not public officers, the constitution disqualifies certain persons, notably persons convicted of offenses involving fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude from being chiefs.”
He further noted that the concern for preserving and protecting the dignity of the chief’s office underlies the ban on chiefs participating in active party politics as stated in Article 276(1).
While chiefs are not prohibited from expressing their opinions on matters of public debate and discussion, Justice Kulendi highlighted the need to strike a balance between the rights of chiefs, the expectations associated with their role, and the public interest concerns addressed by the constitutional provision.
During the case review, the court examined various statements made by chiefs presented by Mr. Gorni. Statements that praised a candidate’s policies, programs, or projects were deemed permissible endorsements and not unconstitutional. However, endorsements specifically endorsing a candidate or party and urging voters to support them were considered taking sides in a partisan political contest, which contravenes the constitution.
The publication proceeded to state that:
Supreme Court of Ghana Distinguishes Permissible Praise from Unconstitutional Endorsement by Chiefs
In the ongoing case regarding chiefs’ involvement in political endorsements, the Supreme Court of Ghana reviewed various statements made by chiefs to determine their constitutional validity. The court clarified the distinction between permissible praise for policies, programs, or projects and unconstitutional endorsements of candidates or parties.
Nana Boakye Tromo III, citing several examples of development projects and policies such as Free SHS, 1-District-1-Factory, and Planting for Food and Jobs, expressed his belief that the candidate has been sent by God to lead. He stated, “We are solidly behind you, and we are declaring today that four more for Nana,’ ‘Four more to do more.”
Similarly, Nana Ampong Koromantan, the Krontihene of Techimantia, expressed gratitude for the construction of the Bechem-Techimantia-Akomadan road and declared support by stating, “It is four more for you.”
Nana Kofi Abiri, the Omanhene of Kenyasi No.1, acknowledged the candidate’s responsiveness to the community’s needs, including road construction and the establishment of a mobile phone network. He expressed gratitude for these developments.
The Okyenhene, Osagyefo Amoatia Ofori Panin II, praised the candidate’s achievements, stating that he had exceeded expectations and deserved a second term.
The Omanhene of Mehame Traditional Area, Nana Owusu Kontoh II, attributed the infrastructure developments in his area to Mr. Mahama and the local MP, Alhaji Collins Dauda.
Lastly, the Paramount Chief of the Waala Traditional Area, Naa Fuseini Seidu Pelpuo IV, acknowledged the candidate’s achievements during his tenure and blessed his decision to contest the Flagbearer position and seek re-election.
Justice Kulendi, addressing the statements, noted that the court could not vouch for their accuracy but would presume them to be accurate for the purpose of the case. He concluded that statements praising a candidate’s policies, programs, or projects are permissible endorsements and not unconstitutional. However, endorsements that specifically endorse a candidate or party and urge voters to support them cross the line into partisan political contest, which the constitution disapproves of.
The Supreme Court’s review of these statements aims to establish a clear distinction between permissible expressions of support and unconstitutional endorsements by chiefs, ensuring adherence to the constitutional provisions regarding chiefs’ involvement in active party politics.
Leave feedback about this