The Supreme Court has directed the Board of Governors of Wesley Girls’ Senior High School to respond to allegations of violating Muslim students’ right to perform their religious prayers within 14 days.
This was after the Apex Court, on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, granted the Attorney-General’s motion for leave to file a new statement of case on behalf of two out of the three defendants.
A private legal practitioner, Shafic Osman, has issued a writ alleging that the rights of Muslim students are being violated and invoked the original jurisdiction of the apex court for intervention.
In his writ, he named the Board of Governors of Wesley Girls’ SHS, Ghana Education Service, and the Attorney-General as the first, second, and third defendants, respectively.
The statement of case of the 2nd and 3rd defendants urged the Court to dismiss the plaintiff’s case on grounds that the reliefs sought, if granted, would infringe on the Wesley Girls’ Senior High School’s right to practice its religion, violative of the school’s rights guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
On Tuesday, November 25, Deputy Attorney-General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, moved the motion before a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Justice Gabriel Pwamang.
Lawyers of the plaintiff, led by Abdul Aziz Gomda, were not opposed to the AG’s prayer.
The Apex Court, after listening to the parties, directed the Board of Governors of the Wesley Girls’ Senior High School to respond to the plaintiff’s statement of case within 14 days.
The panel, which also includes Justice Yaw Darko-Asare, Justice Adjei-Ftimpong, Justice Senyo Dzamefe, Justice Philip Bright Mensah, Justice Janapare Bartel Adzo Kodzo, and Justice Kweku Tawiah Ackaah-Boafo, granted the AG seven days to file the defendants’ statement of case.
The Court also directed that, due to the revelations in the Attorney-General’s proposed statement of case for the 2nd and 3rd defendants, the plaintiff has the right to reply.
Meanwhile, a motion by Democracy Hub to join the action was granted, and their input will only matter after the plaintiff and defendants have filed their statements of case and the memorandum of issues has been determined.
The motion was moved by Oliver Barker-Vormawo Esq.
EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, who was at the Supreme Court reports that, the Board of Governors of Wesley Girls’ SHS and their lawyers were absent.
READ: NSS Ghost names: Court orders Gifty Oware to file witness list by Dec. 17
Warning
Prior to adjourning the case indefinitely, the bench admonished the parties to limit their social media discussions and commentaries, which sought to prejudice the matter before the Apex Court.
Background
The plaintiff’s action, initiated on December 23, 2024, is claiming the following reliefs:
a. A declaration that the 1st defendant’s policy prohibiting the belief, practice, and observance of Islam by Muslim students on its campus is contrary to and inconsistent with Articles 12, 17(1) and (2), 21(1)(b)(c), (e), and 26 of the 1992 Constitution and International Human Rights cognizable under Article 33(5) of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992.
b. A declaration that the 1st defendant’s policy compelling and requiring the practice of a compulsory school religion in a public school is contrary to and inconsistent with Articles 21(1)(b)(c) and Article 26.
c. A declaration that the 1st defendant’s policy prohibiting Muslim students from exercising their religious rights is unlawfully discriminatory and a violation of Article 17(2) of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992.
d. A declaration that the limitations on Muslim students in the 1st defendant’s school undermine the welfare of Muslim students under International Human Rights of the Child cognizable under Article 33(5) of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992.
e. A declaration that the 1st defendant’s policy compelling the practice of Methodism by all students is an establishment of religion in violation of Article 21(1)(c) and Article 56 of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992.
f. A declaration that, by allowing the 1st defendant’s policy of compelling the practice of Methodism by all students, the 2nd defendant has unlawfully allowed the imposition of a common religious program in violation of Article 56 of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992.
g. An order perpetually restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants, with immediate effect, from further administering the impugned policy in the 1st defendant’s school or similar policies in any other school.
h. An order directing the 2nd defendant to enact constitutionally compliant guidelines for the regulation of religious practice and observance for all public schools in Ghana.
j. Any other order(s) that this honorable court may deem fit.
Source: Starrfm.com.gh
