WE agree entirely with political analyst Dr Neo Simutanyi that chiefs and traditional leaders must not campaign for political parties or endorse candidates. The chieftaincy institution occupies a special place in our society. It is older than modern political parties, broader than electoral competition and expected to survive every change of government. A chief is not like any private citizen expressing a private preference. He or she speaks from a position of inherited authority and commands cultural respect over subjects with different political beliefs. That authority must never be converted into campaign capital for any party.

In December 2024, we cautioned Chief Mpindi after he openly declared that he had become an official member of the UPND and pledged unwavering support to the ruling party. We argued then, as we do now, that chiefs are custodians of culture, unity and social order. They are expected to represent and protect every subject in their chiefdom, whether that person supports UPND, NRPUP, Socialist Party or no political party at all.

Traditional leaders are supposed to be unifying figures whose authority transcends political affiliation, religion, tribe and other social divisions. When a chief endorses a candidate, the subjects who support another party may reasonably feel excluded or intimidated. They may begin to fear that access to land, traditional justice, development committees or royal attention will depend on political loyalty. Even where the chief intends no discrimination, the perception of bias is enough to damage trust. How can opposition supporters confidently take disputes before a chief who has publicly campaigned against their candidate?

There is a significant difference between working with the government of the day and campaigning for the ruling party. Chiefs must engage government officials, welcome development projects, raise community concerns and cooperate with public institutions. That is part of their responsibility. But thanking government for a clinic, road or school is not the same as ordering subjects to vote for the President. The former promotes development and cooperation; the latter divides communities and undermines traditional authority.

Dr Simutanyi is also correct to expose the double standard often applied by governments. A chief who praises the ruling party is usually described as supportive of development. But when another chief criticises government or supports the opposition, officials suddenly remember that traditional leaders must not participate in partisan politics. That inconsistency is wrong. The rule must apply equally. A chief campaigning for President Hakainde Hichilema is as politically exposed as one campaigning for Brian Mundubile. Neutrality cannot depend on which party benefits.

Chief Choongo’s assertion that all chiefs should support the sitting President because he is currently the people’s choice is therefore misguided. The President is the Head of State and deserves institutional respect, but this does not require electoral endorsement from chiefs. Chiefs must not use traditional authority to direct that choice. If one chief mobilises for the ruling party, others will feel justified in mobilising for opposition candidates. The result will be politically divided chiefdoms and a House of Chiefs weakened by partisan rivalry.

The constitutional and legal framework recognises chiefs as custodians of tradition, development and unity. Those functions are inherently non-partisan. Traditional leadership depends heavily on moral legitimacy. Unlike elected politicians, chiefs do not seek a fresh mandate every five years. Their power rests on continuity, heritage and the acceptance of their people. They must therefore exercise greater restraint than ordinary political actors.

We call upon the House of Chiefs to take this matter seriously and censure traditional leaders who endorse or campaign for political parties. Sometimes chiefs become carried away when they meet senior government officials and begin making extravagant political statements during pleasantries. But wisdom and restraint are central to traditional leadership. A chief must know when appreciation has crossed into campaigning.

There is an urgent need to reinforce guidelines governing chiefs during elections. Traditional leaders should be reminded of the importance of neutrality, the limits of political speech and the danger of using royal authority to influence voters. This should not be treated as punishment but as protection of the institution.

Government must equally resist the temptation to celebrate partisan chiefs. Encouraging endorsements may bring temporary political advantage, but it damages an institution that every future administration will need. Chiefs should feel free to work with any government without being pressured to pledge loyalty.

The legacy of every chief will be measured by the ability to unite subjects and champion development for all. That can only happen when traditional leaders remain above partisan politics. Chiefs may vote privately, but their thrones must never become campaign platforms. That principle must be defended without exception.