INTRODUCTION In some parts of Africa, traditional leaders remain the main form of government for the rural populace. This is the case in Zimbabwe, where the Constitution,1 read together with the Traditional Leaders Act [Chapter 27:17], establishes traditional leadership. These laws prohibit traditional leaders from engaging, directly or indirectly, in partisan politics.2 However, existing literature3 and election reports4 point to traditional leaders’ active participation in politics. This is especially true with respect to influencing electoral outcomes in favour of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) party. Important as these studies are, however, they lack nuanced case law analyses that build jurisprudence on the involvement of traditional leaders in electoral politics. This chapter, therefore, seeks to fill the void described above and provides analysis of the law vis-a-vis the practice, backed with cases on the conduct of traditional leaders in partisan politics. Thus, the chapter contributes to the existing literature on the legally defined role of traditional leaders vis-a-vis their conduct during elections in Zimbabwe. Beyond this debate, the chapter critiques existing jurisprudence with regard to traditional leadership’s involvement in electoral processes, making use of judicial cases, quasijudicial cases, and extant literature in Zimbabwe. A study of this nature builds a case for consolidation of democracy by imploring litigants to implead effectively for de-politicisation of traditional leaders and the greater consolidation of inclusive and competitive democracy. 1 2 3 4 8 METHODOLOGY AND STRUCTURE OF CHAPTER Methodologically, the chapter relies heavily on extant literature from books, journals, reports, legal documents, case laws, newspaper articles, and opinions of traditional leaders. This is in addition to the views of lawyers and individuals within civil society organisations involved in electoral politics and democratisation in Zimbabwe. The chapter also benefits from the experience of the second author, who has been in electoral litigation during the 2008, 2013 and 2018 harmonised elections in Zimbabwe. The experiences of the first and third authors, who once worked as Human Rights Officers responsible for handling complaints (including election-related complaints) at the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, were also important and immensely benefited the study. This chapter is divided into three sections. Section one is this INTRODUCTION and background. Section two examines the LEGAL INSTRUMENTS GUIDING THE CONDUCT OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS AGAINST THE PRACTICE IN ZIMBABWE. Section three examines the EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE ON THE INVOLVEMENT OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS IN ELECTORAL POLITICS. Section four is the CONCLUSION, which summarises the discussion and proffers suggestions on entrenching the proper conduct of traditional leadership in electoral politics and democratisation. Secs 280 – 283 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. Secs 281 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. L Ntsebeza Democracy Compromised: Chiefs and the Politics of the Land in South Africa’s National and Provincial Elections (2005) 43; C Logan ‘The Roots of Resilience Exploring Popular Support for African Traditional Authorities’ (2015) 27 Journal of Contemporary African Studies 221; T Chigwata ‘The role of traditional leaders in Zimbabwe: Are they still relevant?’ (2016) 20 Law, Democracy & Development 71; G, Mwonzora & E Mandikwaza, ‘The Menu of Electoral Manipulation in Zimbabwe: Food Handouts, Violence, Memory, and Fear – Case of Mwenezi East and Bikita West 2017 by-elections’ (2019) 54 Journal of Asian and African Studies, p 1130. European Union (EU) ‘2018 European Union Election Observation Mission: Final Report, Republic of Zimbabwe Harmonised Election 2018’ October 2018 https;//eeas.europa-eu/ election-obseravtion-mission/eom-zimbabwe-2018_en (accessed 20 February 2020) 1; Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN) Report of the Zimbabwe Electoral Support Network on Pre-Election Political Environment and Observation of Key Electoral Processes (2018).