"Ghana Promotes Discrimination Against Citizens" - Attorney General's Shocking Declaration

The Attorney General's defence of Wesley Girls' Senior High School's discriminatory religious policies represents a dangerous constitutional regression that threatens Ghana's founding social compact. Dr Dominic Ayine has argued in response to a Supreme Court suit that the school's Methodist heritage grants it authority to restrict Muslim students' religious practices, despite receiving state funding and admitting students through a national placement system. This position contradicts the Constitution, violates international law, and betrays the NDC's own established principles.

Article 21(1)(c) of Ghana's 1992 Constitution explicitly guarantees that "all persons shall have the right to freedom to practice any religion and to manifest such practice". This provision is entrenched under Chapter Five, meaning it requires extraordinary parliamentary procedures to amend and enjoys constitutional supremacy. Article 17(2) prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, whilst Article 26(1) establishes that "every person is entitled to enjoy, practise, profess, maintain and promote any culture, language, tradition or religion subject to the provisions of this Constitution". These protections exist without qualification for mission school origins. Article 12(1) mandates that these fundamental rights "shall be respected and upheld by the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary and all other organs of government and its agencies and, where applicable to them, by all natural and legal persons in Ghana".

Ghana's obligations extend beyond domestic law. Article 8 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, which Ghana ratified on 24 January 1989, states that "Freedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion shall be guaranteed". The ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, which Ghana signed on 21 December 2001, reinforces these protections, explicitly addressing conflicts arising from religious intolerance and prohibiting discrimination based on religious grounds in educational institutions. Ghana ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2000, whose Article 18 protects freedom of religion and the right to manifest one's beliefs. Under Article 33(5) of Ghana's Constitution, these international human rights instruments are cognisable within Ghana's legal framework.

The Attorney General's logic invites absurd consequences. If mission school origins justify religious discrimination in state-funded secondary schools, what prevents mission hospitals from refusing treatment to non-Christians? Should businesses established by religious bodies demand religious conformity from customers? Where precisely does this principle terminate? These questions expose the constitutional incoherence of defending institutional discrimination.

The position contradicts the NDC's own principled stance. In 2015, President John Mahama declared in his State of the Nation Address: "It is wrong under our constitution for Muslim students to be compelled to attend church services...It is also wrong to prevent Muslim women from wearing the hijab...Heads of institution must note this for strict compliance". He warned that appropriate sanctions would be taken against any head of institution acting contrary to constitutional provisions. That clarity has vanished, replaced by legal sophistry that undermines religious harmony.

Legal practitioner Osagyefo Barker-Vormawor correctly observes that this represents "a betrayal of the social foundations and inclusive politics that was behind the Revolution". Ghana's Fourth Republic was founded on principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 17, 21, and 35(5) of the Constitution. Defending institutional practices that violate these principles erodes democratic legitimacy and contradicts the constitutional duty under Article 35(5) whereby the State must actively prohibit discrimination and prejudice on grounds of religion.

The practical implications matter profoundly. Muslim students report systematic discrimination including prohibitions on fasting during Ramadan, wearing the hijab, holding the Quran, and performing daily prayers. This forces them to choose between educational opportunity and religious identity, creating systematic exclusion that perpetuates inequality and breeds resentment across generations.

The lawsuit filed by Shafic Osman correctly argues that compelling students to practise a compulsory school religion in a public institution violates Articles 21(1)(b)(c) and Article 26 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court must affirm these protections decisively and establish constitutional guidelines for all public institutions, regardless of their historical origins.

Ghana's strength lies in our capacity for religious coexistence. Muslims, Christians, and traditionalists have intermarried, inter-celebrated, and collaborated to build this nation. Politicians and office holders must not weaponise religious difference for institutional convenience or political advantage.

We call upon the Attorney General to withdraw this constitutionally indefensible position. We urge President Mahama to reaffirm his 2015 commitment to religious freedom with the same clarity and force. We appeal to all Ghanaians to refuse any attempt to divide our nation along religious lines. Our Constitution protects everyone's right to practise their faith freely. That protection cannot depend on which institution one attends, or which government holds power. This is not merely a legal matter; it concerns the soul of our republic and whether we shall honour the constitutional compact that binds us as one nation.

Issaka Sannie
(Zongo Caucus Coordinator for NDC UK & Ireland)