2021
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION ONE
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Tyron Iras Marhguy, a 17-year-old Rastafarian, brought an originating motion under the 1992 Constitution against Achimota Senior High School and the State (represented by the Attorney-General), after Achimota refused to enroll him unless he cut his dreadlocks. He had been placed at Achimota via CSSPS after obtaining aggregate six in the BECE. Achimota’s 2019 Revised Rules require students to keep hair "low, simple and natural." The High Court, per Justice Gifty Agyei Addo, rejected a capacity challenge under Article 33(1), emphasizing that rights are subject to public interest and balancing under Article 12(2), but limitations must be necessary and proportionate. Finding no evidence that dreadlocks undermined discipline, hygiene, or educational welfare, the Court held the refusal violated freedom of religion and its manifestation, education, dignity, equality, culture, and administrative justice. It ordered immediate admission and restrained further interference, declining compensation and costs.
INTRODUCTION
This novel suit invites the Court to ascertain the contours of two pertinent rights of the individual: the right to education and the freedom to profess one's religion. Strikingly, the Applicant in this suit is a minor.
He sues through his next friend his father, to fight a second-cycle institution as well as the state, for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights.
It is very intriguing that notwithstanding the proclamation and acceptance of fundamental human rights as inalienable by the comity of nations, our courts are still fraught with disputes between individuals and the state as regards the extent of the enjoyment of a particular right. Indeed, human rights anywhere do not exist as absolute rights.
These individual rights are generally subject to the public good or public interest. In this case, this Court will consider whether the rights alleged by the Applicant before the Court to have been breached have indeed been violated.
The Court shall further interrogate the contours of derogation of the rights and whether the alleged deviations of the rights, according to the Applicant, on the part of the Respondent, are without constitutional justification.
BACKGROUND
On the 31st of March 2021, the Applicant before the court, Tyron Iras Marhguy, suing per his next friend and father, Tereo Kwame Marhguy, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court per an originating motion for the enforcement of his fundamental humanrights under the 1992 Constitution.
In the supporting affidavit, the Applicant prayed for the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that the failure and or refusal of the 1st Respondent, to admit or enroll the Applicant on the basis of his Rastafarian religious inclination, beliefs and culture characterised by his keeping of rasta is a violation of his fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution particularly Articles 12 (1); 23; 21 (1) (b)(c); 26(1)); 17 (2) and (3);
ii. A declaration that the failure and or refusal of the 1st Respondent, to admit or enroll the Applicant on the basis of his Rastafarian religious inclination, beliefs and culture characterised by his keeping of rasta is a violation of his right to education guaranteed under Articles 25 (1) (b),28 (4) the 1992 Constitution;
iii. A declaration that the order directed at the Applicant by the representative of the 1st Respondent to step aside during the registration process on the basis of his religious belief characterized by