Wesley Girls SHS asked to respond to allegations
The Supreme Court has asked the Board of Directors of Wesley Girls Senior High School to, out of willingness, respond to allegations made by a plaintiff in a case challenging the constitutionality of certain directives of the school within 14 days.
The plaintiff, Shafic Osman, is at the court alleging that Wesley Girls Senior High School’s policy forces Muslim girls to attend Christian services, while preventing Muslim girls from practising their faith, a policy which he says was inconsistent with provisions of the 1992 Constitution.
In court yesterday, the seven-member panel hearing the case, which is presided over by Justice Gabriel Pwamang, was of the view that the school’s board of directors could respond to the allegations to help the court establish the facts.
Meanwhile, the court has given the Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem-Sai, who represented the Ministry of Education, leave to file his amended statement of case, replacing the case he filed earlier.
Other members of the panel were Justices Janapare Bartels Kodzo, Senyo Dzamefe, Yaw Darko Asare, Richard Adjei-Frimpong, Philip Bright Mensah and Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo.
A-G’s case
In his amended statement of case, the A-G argued that Wesley Girls High School was owned by the Methodist Church and not the state, hence had the right to practice its religion in line with the Methodist Christian Faith.
He added that the school was entitled to government funding despite its character of religious ownership.
As a result, he was of the view that the state could not take away the religious rights of the school simply because the school receives government funding.
In a related development, Democracy Hub, represented by Oliver Barker-Vormawor, as an amicus curiae, had also filed an application to offer information to the court to help in the determination of the same matter.
He has been asked by the bench to hold on for the court and the parties to agree on the issues for determination before filing his case.
The panel, before adjourning the matter indefinitely, urged all parties to limit discussions and analyses on the case on social media.
Background
In a suit filed by the legal practitioner and law lecturer, Osman averred that the school’s admission process mandates signing an undertaking that includes an Institutional Faith Clause, which significantly affects non-adherent students, particularly Muslims.
The school, it said, required these students to participate in Christian practices, such as attending Methodist mass, prayers, and special Christian events.
By doing this, the plaintiff said Muslim students faced disciplinary actions for possessing Islamic items (such as the Quran or hijab) and were barred from observing Islamic religious practices, including Salat and Ramadan.
It further alleged that the school does not recognise Muslim students equally compared to their Catholic or Anglican peers, effectively treating them as second-class citizens.
This policy, Osman argued, undermines the religious and moral upbringing of Muslim students, separating them from their families and communities.
It is based on this that the applicant is seeking to enforce the 1992 Constitution by arguing that the school’s policy unlawfully discriminates against its Muslim students, their parents and communities.
The policies, the plaintiff further averred, unlawfully nullify the right to freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe and practice the religion of its Muslim students, adding that the policy had no justification under Article 21, and that the policies were disproportionate under any regime of limitation.
He, therefore, wants the Supreme Court to declare that these acts by Wesley Girls are inconsistent with Article 12, 17(1)(2), 21(1)(b)(c)(e) 26(1), 33(5) and 46 of the 1992 Constitution.
