body-container-line-1
04.06.2021 Feature Article

Achimota School-Rastafari Impasse: A wasted evening with Mr Paul Adom Otchere

Achimota School-Rastafari Impasse: A wasted evening with Mr Paul Adom Otchere
04.06.2021 LISTEN

Billaw…....…on the 31st day of May in the year of our Lord 2021, as the sun races to its peak, amidst the unbearable and indiscriminate wailings of sirens, in flagrant disregard to statutory regulations, thousands of enthusiastic adherents of Rastafari, including some renowned lawyers and law students from different law faculties thronged to the High Court premises of the Human Rights division Accra, to hear the judgement of the case, where a Rastafari student was denied admission into Achimota school on grounds of religion.

Fast forward, having pronounced its judgement on the subject matter in dispute, after keeping the enthusiastic crowd in suspense for almost two (2) hours, the good people of Ghana received with mixed reactions, the decision of the court.

While others contend that allowing students with dreadlocks into the school will open the floodgates for all kinds of hairdo, the court reasoned otherwise and proceeded to enter judgement in favor of the applicant herein.

Honestly, we should begin to appreciate, if we have not started at all, the level of commitment and interest, the relentless quest, couple with the zeal and the zest of the modern day Ghanaian on issues of national development. Going forward as a nation, this must be encouraged, or at least be seen to be encouraged by the National Commission on Civic Education, NCCE through intensify public education on citizen’s participation on topical issues of national character.

JOURNALISTS “SACKED” FROM THE COURT ROOM?

The answer to this question lies within the question itself. We live in a country where some people think they are more important than others- mostly the ordinary man. In most cases, they argue that they have rights, as if to say the others do not have same claim. What they fail to understand or feign ignorance of is that, such rights, if any at all, are limited by same constitution in the interest of public safety and order among others.

Fact is, anyone familiar with the particular courtroom would affirm that the said courtroom cannot even contain more than 30 people. Given the public interest in the case, the number of people who flooded the court premises were around the range of 350-450.I do not want to speak for and on behalf of the court, but in view of the current Covid-19 pandemic, it should appear unreasonable and unhygienic to allow everybody into courtroom that can barely contain 20 people.

Consequently, the court directed that only parties to the instant case, including their lawful attorneys be allowed into the courtroom. About 2 journalists were equally permitted to enter the courtroom to report. Even some lawyers were prevented from entering. But for mischief, laced with delusional vain-gloriousness, to smear the judiciary with “bad name”, no journalist, worth his sort, would shamefully report that journalists were “sacked” from the courtroom in the instant case. For a fact, the writer of this article was asked to leave the courtroom about 5 times. No journalist was “sacked” from the courtroom. They were politely told to stand outside, together with some lawyers and the enthusiastic crowd, and respectfully, they did.

WASTED EVENING WITH PAUL ADOM OKYERE

Having listened to the “Good Evening Ghana” editorial of the MetroTV on the Achimota-Rastafari impasse, hosted by Paul Adom Okyere, it’s high time he is told in the face that the Court is not a chamber of emotions, neither is it a common sense institution. It’s not also a theathre of drama. It operates on laws and treats every case based on the unique facts presented.

Admittedly, we are allowed by same laws to disagree with decisions of the court. What we are not allow to do is to make unsound and unrelated comparisons to suggest that, a particular injustice should not be cured because “it’s in the interest of a child”. Such arguments are not only legally defective, but rationally misplaced and logically inconsistent. You can call for equality in justice without necessarily equalizing two wrongs.

ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION,1992

So the whole argument by Mr. Paul Adom Otchere is that even though he has not read the judgement of the learned Judge, he thinks she erred in law when she failed, refused and or ignored to consider article 14 (1e) of the constitution, 1992.Dear reader, permit me to reproduce the said article from the constitution for your examination.

Article 14(1e)

“Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except in the following cases and in accordance with procedure permitted by law-for the purposes of education or welfare of a person who has not attained the age of eighteen (18) years.”

Indeed, many scholars, including Mr. Paul Adom Otchere hold the view that the systematic discrimination meted out to students of public schools on religious grounds is firmly rooted on the exceptions provided for under article 14(1e) of the constitution, 1992.Indeed, it must be pointed out that the context of personal liberties that is sought to be limited have to do with confinement of a person.

Stately differently, for each of the exceptions in article 14(1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e), it has to do with confinement for the purposes of execution of a sentence, contempt of court, medical condition, education and the welfare of under 18 persons.

To that extent therefore, it is legally defective to construe as, and give a cross carpet meaning to the above provisions and make rules that limits a persons’s right to religion and to manifest same. Indeed, the right to religion and to manifest same is so sacred that even where personal liberties are taken away, the affected person still has the right to practice his religion. This explains why even in a prison, we still have people practicing their beliefs as in Mosques and Churches or any other.

WHY TYRON IRAS MARHGUY SHOULD STILL HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY

The facts of the instant case are that the applicant herein, Tyron Iras Marhguy, sued by his next friend and father, Tereo Kwame Marhguy prayed the court to enforce his fundamental human rights under article 33 of the constitution, 1992.That the defendant(s) woefully failed, refused and or denied the applicant admission into the Achimota SHS even though he qualified for same. The defendant (s) submitted that, per the school rules and regulations, the applicant cannot be granted admission unless he cuts his dreadlocks. Applicant refused the order and contended that the dreadlocks are not for fun and that they are part of his personality and religious beliefs and he cannot be asked to renounced his religious practices per a true and proper construction of article 21 (1c),17 (2),12 (1),25 (1b) and 1(2) among others.

At this point dear reader, permit me to reproduce the words of the said articles.

Article 21 (1c)

“ALL persons shall have the freedom to practice ANY RELIGION and to MANIFEST such practice” (Emphasis is mine)

Article 17 (2)

“A person shall not be discriminated against on grounds of gender, race, color, ethnic origin, RELIGION, CREED or social or economic status” (Emphasis is mine)

Article 12 (1)

“The fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in this chapter shall be respected and upheld by the EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATURE and JUDICIARY and ALL other organs of government and AGENCIES and where applicable to them, by all natural and legal persons in Ghana and shall be ENFORCEABLE BY THE COURTS as provided for in this constitution.”

(Emphasis is mine)

Article 25 (1b)

“SCONDARY EDUCATION in its different forms, including technical and vocational education, shall be made GENERALLY AVAILABLE and ACCESSIBLE to ALL by every appropriate means…………”(Emphasis is mine)

Article 1(2)

“This constitution shall be the SUPREME LAW of Ghana and ANY OTHER LAW found to be inconsistent with any provision this constitution, shall to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.” (Emphasis is mine)

Consequently, any objective reader would come to the irresistible conclusion that the rules made by Achimota school to control the conduct of students are nothing but mere assemblage of letters and cannot therefore be more supreme than the constitution of Ghana.

THE FLOODGATES DEBATE: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

Following the ruling delivered by the court in the above case, many people contended, including one Angel Carbonu, no mean a person than the President of National Association of Graduate Teachers that, the ruling has opened and or is likely open the floodgates for all kinds of hairdo in schools.

This contention cannot hold because the issue set out for determination is not generally about hairdo but whether or not the applicant’s fundamental human right has been breached by the refusal of the school to grant him admission on grounds of religion.

The empty generalization of the ruling is either we do not fully understand and appreciate the main issue for determination or it’s a deliberate attempt to belittle the reasoning of the court. The parties are not in court because of all kinds of hairdo, the parties are in court because someone has been denied his religious rights.

If we have problems with the law, let’s call for its amendment. But to allow an innocent child to suffer injustice because you “disagree” with the law is untenable to say the least, and perhaps amounts to an illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.

body-container-line