The recent constitutional suit involving Wesley Girls’ High School and some of its former students calls for method and careful consideration. It touches on the rivalled balance between institutional authority and individual religious liberty—an issue that repeatedly commands intense public interest. This is far from a routine constitutional matter; its implications extend to the entire nation.
I wish to offer a few observations.
First, the question of the “adequate” number of Justices to be empanelled for this case merits serious reflection. The 1992 Constitution, while mandating that the Supreme Court sit in panels of no fewer than five or seven justices when duly constituted or exercising its review jurisdiction, does not prescribe an upper limit for constitutional matters. Presently, the Court comprises eighteen Justices in addition to the Chief Justice. In view of the sensitivity and national significance of this dispute, I respectfully submit that justice will be best served by an expanded panel—in my view, one consisting of thirteen or fifteen Justices.
The value of this approach lies in the collective depth and breadth of the Court’s jurisprudence. A judgment delivered by a significantly constituted panel carries greater weight and finality than one rendered by a much smaller subset of the Court’s full complement. Indeed, such an expanded panel is an ingredient that makes for stability in the law and reduces the natural appetite of litigants to seek a review of the Court’s decision.
I trust that this modest contribution will find a place with those entrusted with the administration of justice. I lay no claim to an attempt to teach my elders and betters .
Speaking in the manner of amicus curiae, it is useful to echo that Wesley Girls’ High School is a mission-based institution. Its foundation rests firmly on Christian ethos and allied disciplinary principles that have shaped its enviable legacy. The school’s growth and the enviable reputation it rightfully upholds are anchored on these time-tested Christian values.
Such principles create an environment that consistently produces exceptional students. Those who choose a mission school must accept the corresponding responsibilities that such an institution necessarily imposes.
It is also well-established that school managers are entitled to a reasonable measure of discretion in formulating and enforcing internal policies. There is nothing improper or untidy in a mission school structuring its rules around its guiding ethos. I submit that this falls within that permissible latitude.
We look forward to the Court’s determination. Hopefully ,it will clarify the permissible and constitutional boundaries of internal school regulations. The issues raised appear to cover relatively uncharted legal waters and inevitably invoke comparisons to the Achimota School decision on hairstyle and religious liberties.
Perhaps, with time, the law will have to confront even more unconventional claims—whether, for instance, the wearing of leaves and raffia skirts may constitute an exercise of religious freedom.
We await the guidance of the apex Court.
Written by : Kwame Boafo Akuffo, Esq. Akropong–Akuapem
