Achimota School to appeal ruling on Rastafarian boys' admission

The management of Achimota School says it will appeal the High Court’s decision ordering the school to admit two Rastafarian students who were denied admission because of their hairstyle.

The Human Rights Division of the Accra High Court on Monday ordered the school to admit Tyron Iras Marhguy and Oheneba Nkrabea on the basis that the failure of the school to admit the two because of their hairstyle, which is a manifestation of the religious right was a violation of their human rights, right to education and dignity.

But reacting to the ruling Tuesday in a statement signed and issued by the Chairman of the school’s Board of Governors, the school’s management said it disagreed with the court’s ruling.

The statement said, “The court ruled that the religious rights of the two applicants had been violated by the School Management as they sought to enforce the time-tested and well-known rules of the School. The Court further directed the School to admit the two applicants.

“The school board disagrees with the ruling of the Court. The school’s board has therefore directed its lawyers to appeal against the ruling.”

Background

The refusal of admission to Marhguy and Nkrabea by the headmistress of the Achimota School became the talk of the town months ago, with the Ghana Education Service, civil society organisations, NGOs and individuals offering divergent opinions on the matter.

With support from Child Rights International, Marhguy filed the suit, through his father, at the Human Rights Division of the Accra High Court on March 31, this year to seek the enforcement and declaration of his right to education.

Subsequently, Nkrabea also filed a suit through his parents.

The Attorney-General had argued previously in court that the applicant had no cause of action because nothing within the scope of his right to education and religion had been infringed upon.

Marhguy was represented by Mr James Gawuga Nkrumah, while Nkrabea was represented by Mr Wayoe Ghanamannti.

Counsel for the Board of Governors of Achimota School, Mr Kwesi Fynn, had argued that the curtailment of the right of the Rastafarian students through the school’s rules was provided for under Article 14 Clause One of the Constitution of Ghana.

However, counsel for the students insisted that the rights of their clients had been infringed upon.

Ruling

It was the view of the court presided over by Justice Gifty Adjei Addo that the respondents (the Attorney-General and the Board of Governors of Achimota School) did not dispute the fact that the rules of the school were made by the Board of Governors of the school, but the implementation of the same rules must be in conformity with the rules of the Ghana Education Service and the 1992 Constitution.

“What has the wearing of dreadlocks, which are the manifestation of one’s religious rights, got to do with upholding discipline in the school?” the judge quizzed.

 “To maintain that a person must cut his or her dreadlocks, which are the manifestation of his or her religion, before he or she is admitted to school sins against the 1992 Constitution.

“I reject the argument of the respondents that upholding the reliefs of the applicant will discriminate against other students who abide by the rules of the school,” Justice Addo said.

Not absolute

According to the judge, fundamental human rights were not absolute and could be limited by statutes and policies, adding: “But this must be juxtaposed with the public interest, as in this current case, and what reasonable justification has been put before this court in the implementation of the school rules to convince the court to rule in favour of the respondents?”

The judge said the ultimate aim of the rules was to enhance discipline and academic excellence.

She wondered what effect the keeping of  dreadlocks would have on the school community if the Rastafarian students were allowed to keep their dreadlocks.

“The ultimate aim of the rules of the school is omnibus and I am unable to see of his dreadlocks is a breach of his dignity and no rightful basis has been provided by the school to interfere with the religious rights of the applicant,” the presiding judge said.

Reliefs

The applicants, through the civil action, were asking the court to declare that the failure and or refusal of the school to admit or enrol them on the basis of their Rastafarian religious inclination, beliefs and culture, characterised by their keeping of dreadlocks, was a violation of their fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution, particularly articles 12(1), 23, 21(1)(b)(c), 26(1)) and 17(2) and (3).

They wanted the court to declare that the failure and or refusal of the school to admit or enrol them on the basis of their Rastafarian religious inclination, beliefs and culture, characterised by their keeping of Rasta, was a violation of their right to education, guaranteed under articles 25(1)(b) and 28(4) of the Constitution.

They prayed the court for a declaration that the order directed at them by the representative of Achimota School to step aside during the registration process on the basis of their religious belief, characterised by the keeping of Rasta, was a violation of their right to dignity, guaranteed under articles 15(1) and 35(4),(5) of the Constitution.

They also sought a declaration that there was no lawful basis for the school to interfere with the applicants’ right to education based on their Rasta through which they manifested or expressed their constitutionally guaranteed right to religion and to practise and manifest same.

In their respective suits, they further urged the court for an order directed at the school to immediately admit or enrol the applicants to continue with their education unhindered.

Compensation

The applicants asked the court for an order directed at the respondents to jointly and severally compensate the applicants for the inconvenience, embarrassment, waste of time,and violation of their fundamental human rights and freedoms.

However, on the compensation, the court was of the view that no order would be made due to the future relationship between the students and the school.