I guess I'd like some concrete examples of how any of these can only be done by leaders. I do think that people in formal leadership roles have specific opportunities to enact them, but I don't think that warrants them being in a separate section or called out.
For example, you called out sections 2, 3, 4, and 6 as being specific to leaders. I am not and never have been in a formal leadership position in any of my organizations. But I've been involved in some of these.
Specifically, Principle 3.4 says that leaders "should clearly define appropriate and inappropriate uses of organizational computing resources". For a while, I worked on the operations team. It didn't matter that someone in a leadership role wanted access to production data, that was off limits. At one point in time, production data was more widely available to the development staff. However, there was no need for them to have access to that data. Of course, a leader is in a position to enforce this, but I would expect that anyone would ensure that access to individual's data is controlled. It seems like this can be generalized without losing anything into Principles 1.6, 1.7, and 2.8.
Another specific example is Principle 3.6. At an organization, we did some discussions, retrospectives, and other reflections. One shortcoming was learning and professional development. Non-leaders stepped up to do things. I started a time to gather and watch then discuss things like conference talks. Another non-leader started a time to do things like code and design katas. Others had similar ideas. Some need funding and management involvement, others are simply engineers doing things without management involvement.
Perhaps you are right - some of these things may only be done by management. But I have at least some counter examples where people who are not in leadership positions are stepping up and doing things that this code says are for "any member of an organization or group who has influence, educational responsibilities, or managerial responsibilities". I think this backs up my idea that anyone in an organization can step up and become a leader. Since that's true, I don't think we should be hiding these good things to do in a section that people may not read because they may not think it applies to them.
I do think that some aspects of these leadership principles fall to people with power. But I don't think that warrants a separate section in the code. I think separating them from the underlying principles where managers or leaders have a responsibility to manage or direct resources or create or enforce rules/policies adds unnecessary verbosity while hiding things that (in some organizations, anyway) anyone can do.