What constitutes "active party politics" by chiefs? : Check out Supreme Court reasoning

The plaintiff further sought a declaration that the endorsement of politicians by some chiefs during and in the round up to the 2020 General election amounted to their engagement in ‘active party politics’ and thus a breach of Article 276(1) of the constitution.

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

The Supreme Court of Ghana has clarified the phrase “active party politics” by chiefs as contained in Article 276(1) of the 1992 Constitution.

This was in a suit filed by a private citizen and LLB graduate, Elorm Kwami Gorni inviting the apex court to interpret that constitutional provision, which according to him, seemed ambiguous.

The plaintiff further sought a declaration that the endorsement of politicians by some chiefs during and in the round up to the 2020 General election amounted to their engagement in ‘active party politics’ and thus a breach of Article 276(1) of the constitution.

The said constitutional provision indicates; ‘A chief shall not take part in active party politics, and any chief wishing to do so and seeking election to Parliament shall abdicate his stool or skin.”

The plaintiff, Kwami Gorni also averred that in his campaign for re-lection as president of Ghana in 2020, several chiefs publicly endorsed then-candidate Nana Akufo Addo while others also endorsed the leader of the largest opposition party, John Mahama.

This, according to him, run afoul of the 1992 Constitution and thus called on the apex court for interpretation.

On its part, the Attorney General contended that the phrase ' active party politics' suggests no ambiguity.

They added that the mere endorsement of a candidate for a political office by a chief without more does not place them in the realm of ' active party politics.'

In its judgment, the Supreme Court in the opinion of Kulendi JSC, established that the phrase in contention was amenable and subject to the court's interpretation.

The Court, therefore, held that when a chief merely commends projects, policies, and infrastructure of a political party, whether past or present, it does not amount to them participating in ' active party politics'.

On the other hand, the Court indicated that any act of a chief that endorses the person, or the candidature of a person for a political position or urges voters to vote for him or her to the exclusion of other contenders, sins against the phrase as contained in Article 276(1) of the Constitution.

The court thus dismissed in part the suit by a unanimous decision.

To read the full judgment, visit Dennislaw