Endorsement of a candidate as active party politics
Having painstakingly reviewed the historical background and experience that have informed Article 276(1), and taking due cognizance of the debate in the Consultative Assembly relating to that provision and other relevant perspectives from learned scholars, including the mutually reinforcing nature of the relationship between Article 276(1) and Article 270, this Court is of the considered view that 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). We are led to this conclusion by the belief that such an interpretation best vindicates the principles and policy rationale or intent behind Article 276(1), which is that, Chiefs must not take sides or be seen to have taken sides in a partisan political contest, as to do so risks creating or exacerbating social division to the detriment of their communities and damaging the prestige, honor and reverence of the stool, skin and the Chief's office.
To sum up: We hold that the phrase "active party politics" contained in Article 276(1) is amendable and subject to interpretation by 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 programmes of a candidate or their party, whether past, present or proposed, do not amount to participation in "active party politics." However, endorsement of the person of the candidate or of their party, whether free-standing or embedded in an otherwise innocuous statement, is violative of Article 276(1).
Endorsement of policies and projects distinguished
We hasten to emphasize that, the conclusion we have reached in this matter applies only to endorsements of the person or the party of a candidate. A Chief does not breach or contravene Article 276(1) if he endorses or praises (or criticizes, denounces) a policy, a programme, or a project of a candidate for elective political office or of his or her party. As champions and advocates for the development and welfare of their communities, Chiefs are free to make an endorsement of the latter kind, as to interpret Article 276(1) to prohibit such non-personal endorsements would hamper the ability of chiefs to perform and fulfil one of the critical roles and expectations of their office. As long as they do not go the extra step of endorsing one or the other party or candidate as their personal preference in an election, endorsing or expressing support for a policy, programme, or project does not affront Article 276(1). Of course, chiefs also remain generally free to participate in and express their opinion about matters that are the subject of public debate and discussion. We are again of the considered opinions that this strikes the right balance between the rights of Chiefs, the reasonable expectations associated with their role, and the public interest concerns that animated Article 276(1).
