The Achimota School unsatisfied together with Attorney-General have gone back to court to contest the ruling of the High Court that some two Rastafarian students, Tyrone Iras Marhguy and Oheneba Kwaku Nkrabea, be admitted.
Recall somewhere in March this year, the authorities at the Achimota school denied two Rastafarians admission to enrol at school due to their dreadlocks.
According to the school, the rules and regulations of the senior high school do not permit students to carry dreadlocks in school thus cannot be admitted unless otherwise.
Ras Aswad Nkrabeah, a father of one of the students who has been denied admission at the school took to social media to express concerns.
The frustrated father is worried as to why the school will not let his son enrol because he has the right to his culture as far as it does not breach the 1992 constitution of Ghana.
However, an Accra High Court ordered Achimota School to admit the two Rastafarian students (Tyrone Iras Marhguy and Oheneba Kwaku Nkrabea) it denied enrollment over their dreadlocks.
Disappointed by the development, the Governing Board of the Achimota School afterwards declared its determination to appeal the ruling by the Human Rights Division of the Accra High Court, ordering it to admit the two Rastafarian students.
In appealing the case, Achimota School argues that the High Court failed when it held that the rules and regulations of the school concerning ensuring uniformity in appearance are unlawful and interferes with one’s religious rights.
Given this, the school is urging the Appeals Court to set aside the judgement of the High Court and order the plaintiffs to comply with the school’s regulations if they choose to be students of the school.
Backing this stance, the AG’s department insists the judge erred in her ruling. The AG further goes on to argue that, the decision by Achimota School does not interfere with the right to the education of the boys.
“The learned Judge erred when she held that the regulation of the 1st Respondent requiring that students keep their hair low amounted to an illegal and unconstitutional attempt to suspend the manifestation of the Applicant’s guaranteed freedom to practice and manifest his religion….
“The learned Judge erred when she held that Respondent’s actions of asking the Applicant to step aside during the registration process are a violation of his right to dignity especially when the 2nd Respondent had disputed the veracity of that fact,” parts of the appeal by the AG’s office stated.
