Supreme Court: It’s unconstitutional for a Chief to endorse a Presidential or Parliamentary Candidate
"We further hold that commendations or expressions of appreciation (or criticism) by Chiefs about the policies, projects, and programs of a candidate of their party, whether past, present or proposed, do not amount to participation in “active party politics”
The Supreme Court has by a unanimous decision declared that any chief who endorses a political party or a political candidate or asks his people to vote for a Political Party overtly or covertly has engaged in “active party politics” and breached Article 276(1) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.
According to Justice Dotse who presided over the case and delivered the judgment on November 1, 2022 “endorsement of the person or the candidate or their party, whether free-standing or embedded in an otherwise innocuous statement, is violative of Article 276(1)” in the case between Elorm Kwami Gorni vs The Attorney-General (Civil Suit No: J1/08/2021)
The ruling follows an application by an LLM student invoking the original jurisdiction of the Apex Court for the interpretation of active party politics by a Chief under Article 276 Clause 1.
Meanwhile, the Court again in a unanimous decision has dismissed the Plaintiff’s suit in part stating that We hold that the phrase “active party politics” contained in Article 276(1) is amenable and subject to interpretation, this Court in exercise of our original jurisdiction under Article 130(1)(a).
“We further hold that commendations or expressions of appreciation (or criticism) by Chiefs about the policies, projects, and programs of a candidate of their party, whether past, present or proposed, do not amount to participation in “active party politics”.
The Background
A private citizen and LLM student of the University of Ghana, School of Law, Elorm Kwami Gorni (Plaintiff) commenced an action in the Supreme Court on the 19th day of November 2020 invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 2(1) and 130(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and Rule 45 of the Supreme Court rules, 1996, C.I 24 claiming the following reliefs;
(a) An interpretation of the phrase “active party politics” as used in Article 276(1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana
(b) A declaration that certain Chiefs who, during the electioneering campaign leading up to the 2020 General Elections, “endorsed” one or the other of the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party(NPP), Nana Addo Dankwa Akuffo-Addo, and the presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), John Dramani Mahama, we’re, by such endorsement, involved in “active party politics”, per the intent and purpose of Article 276(1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
(c) That an endorsement by a Chief of any presidential and or Parliamentary candidate before, during, and after a presidential election amounts to a breach of Article 276 (1) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, and same amounts to an engagement in ‘active party politics’ as purposed and intended under Article 276 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
(d) Any other reliefs that this Honorable Court deems fit under the circumstances.
The Plaintiff’s invitation to the Supreme Court to interpret the phrase “active party politics” was because he believed that the said phrase was ambiguous and as a result was being abused by Chiefs who are mandated by law to stay neutral to maintain peace and unity amongst their people.
Below is the full and original ruling:
By Edziorna Francis Mensah
