1.0 Introduction

BILLAW………… barely a week ago, when I visited you with gossip from the big cities, I realized the landscape of our beautiful community unfolds like a canvas of emerald green, with rolling hills and vast plains stretching as far as the eye could see. The soil is rich and fertile, perfect for cultivation, and the air is crisp and clean.

Towering mountains rise up in the distance, their rugged peaks a stark contrast to the gentle slopes and valleys below. Yet, despite the ideal conditions, a sense of unease settles over the land. The skies are a brilliant blue, but not a cloud in sight, and the farmers wait anxiously for the rains that never come. The earth is parched and dry, cracked and withered, and the crops that were once so full of promise now wilt and fade. The farmers are ready, and their tools and seeds are all set, but the land remains stubbornly barren, refusing to yield its bounty without the life-giving water it so desperately needs.

The said relevant provision states thus:

Article 276 of the constitution, 1992

By the way, do you remember my childhood friend, MAARONG? During my primary school days, I was such a truant and stubborn student that I refused to go to school for three weeks, and my mother, as strict as she was, also refused to give me food for three weeks. It was my friend MAARONG who shared his food with me in their house. Living in an area mainly populated by two main tribes, SISSALA and DAGARA, our friendship grew closer and stronger. During that period, I slept in their house and went to the farm with them. I am told some of these relationships have matured into inter-marriages. However, for some time now, I cannot find MAARONG. Please, where is MAARONG? Please stop the fight, let’s search for MAARONG! Let’s search for PEACE!

But today’s gossip is not about the vegetative cover of the community. It is not about the farming season either. I have come to gossip to you about the effect of Article 276(1) of the Constitution of 1992 and the balancing role of our chiefs as traditional leaders in exercising their constitutional right of participating in active politics.

As Ghana prepares for major Presidential and Parliamentary elections, the air is electric with anticipation as the political season reaches its crescendo. Social media is awash with hashtags and memes, as each side wages a fierce online battle for dominance. Rallies and debates draw massive crowds, with passionate orators whipping the audiences into frenzies of excitement.

The scent of popcorn and “Chinchinga” wafts from street vendors, fueling the fervor of the faithful. Political pundits and analysts dissect every move, parsing policy pronouncements and gaffes alike. But in all this, the chiefs are left out and conditionally debarred from expressing their preference to any candidate. They are not to participate, in or endorse the candidature or party of the candidate either by express or implied conduct in active partisan politics under Article 276(1) of the Constitution of 1992. This provision remains alive despite having the right to freedom of speech expression and association pursuant to Article 21 (1) (a) (e) under the Constitution of 1992. But does the said Article 276(1) of the Constitution of 1992 bar chiefs from endorsing or participating in active politics? (Sit upright, take a sip of some Pito, and enjoy a good read)

The said relevant provision states thus:


Article 276 of the constitution, 1992

(1) 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.

2.0 Schools of Thoughts

At first glance, the above provision may appear to be clear and self-explanatory, admitting no ambiguity whatsoever. However, that is the letter of the law, not its spirit. When interpreting the constitution or any enactment by parliament, it must be read as a whole, and the interpretation must not defeat the intention of the legislature. It must be broad-based and purposive, as the letter of the law and its spirit are inseparable bedfellows.

One school of thought submits that article 276(1) of the Constitution is cryptic, ambiguous, and unclear, thus requiring interpretation. It is their contention that without an authoritative pronouncement and clarity from our courts, article 276(1) could allow traditional rulers to engage in party politics as long as they do not run for elective political office.

This school of thought criticizes certain chiefs for allegedly endorsing candidates from rival political parties in the 2020 General Elections. They argue that the chiefs' public support for one candidate over another constitutes participation in "active party politics" under Article 276(1).

In response, another school of thought holds a different view. They argue that the word that needs interpretation is "active." They claim that "active" is clear and unambiguous, distinguishing between mere politics and active party politics. Therefore, endorsing a candidate for office does not necessarily constitute active party politics.

They further argue that chiefs, like all citizens of Ghana, have fundamental human rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution, including freedom of speech and expression. Chiefs cannot control how their communities vote based on their personal endorsements. Therefore, they believe the opposing arguments are baseless and should be dismissed entirely.

3.0 The role of Chiefs and their traditional significance

In the rich tapestry of traditional societies, chiefs have long played a vital role as custodians of cultural heritage, guardians of communal values, and symbols of unity and identity. For generations, these revered leaders have embodied the wisdom, spirituality, and continuity of their people, providing a sense of stability and direction in an ever-changing world. As the cornerstone of traditional governance, chiefs have wielded significant influence, shaping the social, political, and economic fabric of their communities through their leadership and guidance. As we explore the role of chiefs and their traditional significance, we delve into a world of profound respect, deep-rooted customs, and enduring legacy, where the past, present, and future converge.

Chiefs act as the guardians of cultural heritage, entrusted with the sacred responsibility of preserving and promoting the traditions, customs, and practices of their ancestors. They are the keepers of history, ensuring that the stories, rituals, and values of their people are passed down through generations. Through their leadership, chiefs safeguard the cultural identity of their communities, providing a sense of continuity and connection to the past.

As symbolic unifiers, chiefs embody the unity and cohesion of their people. They are the rallying point for social solidarity and collective progress, fostering a sense of belonging among their subjects. Chiefs provide a shared sense of purpose and direction, helping to resolve conflicts and promote social harmony. Their leadership transcends political and geographical boundaries, uniting people across diverse backgrounds and interests.

Thus, in some traditions, chiefs are also moral authorities, providing spiritual guidance and moral direction to their people. They promote social justice, harmony, and the well-being of their subjects, serving as a source of wisdom and counsel. Through their example and leadership, chiefs inspire their people to uphold the highest ethical standards, fostering a culture of integrity, respect, and compassion. Their moral authority is rooted in their commitment to the well-being of their people and the land.

Indeed, in present day, the role of chiefs is diversified to meet the demands of modernity and globalization. In this sense, chiefs act as bridges to modernity and play a vital role in facilitating dialogue and cooperation between traditional and modern institutions. They ensure that development is balanced with cultural sensitivity, promoting inclusive and sustainable progress that respects the heritage and aspirations of their people. Through their leadership, chiefs help to build bridges between generations, cultures, and communities, fostering greater understanding and cooperation in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

4.0 What amounts to Participation in “Active Party Politics”?


Article 276(1) was not created in a vacuum. The architects of the constitution inserted that provision based on historical background and experience. Indeed, there were experiences where some chiefs openly aligned themselves with political parties, leading to conflicts, divisions, and even violence in their communities. For instance, during the Second Republic (1969-1972), some chiefs openly supported the ruling Progress Party, leading to tensions with opposition groups. Similarly, in the Third Republic (1979-1981), chiefs were accused of bias towards the ruling People's National Party. These experiences demonstrated that chiefs' involvement in active politics could compromise their neutrality, undermine their traditional authority, and create social unrest.

Furthermore, the conduct of some chiefs, such as using their platforms to campaign for political parties or making public statements on political issues, has raised concerns about their impartiality. To prevent such occurrences and maintain social cohesion, the 1992 Constitution prohibits chiefs from participating in active politics, ensuring that they remain above the political fray and focus on their traditional roles. A chief who still insists on joining the acrimonious and boisterous terrain of active politics for any elective position will have to abdicate his stool/skin.

The above development notwithstanding, admittedly, article 276(1) constitutes a restriction of the fundamental right of chiefs to freedom of speech and expression, as well as freedom of thought and belief. However, it is submitted that article 276(1), which is of equal constitutional status, is a narrowly-tailored and reasonable restriction on the rights of Chiefs and is, in light of the history and the importance of the concerns at stake, justifiable in the public interest.

To reduce our discussion into essentials,

a. Commendations or expressions of appreciation (or criticism) by chiefs about the policies, projects, and programmes of a candidate or their party, whether past, present, or proposed, do not amount to participation in “active party politics.”

b. A chief’s endorsement of a candidate for elective national or local political office to the exclusion of rival candidates amounts to participating in “active party politics” within the meaning of Article 276(1).

c. A chief’s endorsement of the person of the candidate or of their party, whether or not the statement was made free-standing or embedded in an otherwise innocuous statement, amounts to “active partisan politics” within the meaning of article 276(1).

Conclusion

I used to believe that chiefs should not be involved in active politics. However, if a chief chooses to do so, they should abdicate their position in accordance with the constitution. This belief upholds the principles and policy intentions of the Legislature behind article 276(1). This article states that chiefs should not show favoritism or be perceived as taking sides in political contests. Doing so could create or worsen social divisions within their communities and harm the reputation and respect of the chief's position.