[ad_1]
1. Let us not get carried away by public sensationalism and the relentless attacks on the Achimota school, for what part of the public calls repressive and targeted attack on religion. The central idea of the problem has little to do with religion, but rather with a movement known for its radical non-conformist ideology.
Please make me happy, Rastafari, as defined by (www.britannica.com/topic/), is a religious and political movement, traces its roots to Jamaica and adopted by many groups around the world who combine Protestant Christianity, mysticism and a pan-African political consciousness.
Rastafarian “life” includes wearing long hair; locked and uncombed in its natural state, adorning clothing in the colors of red, green, gold and black (which symbolize the life force of blood, herbs, royalty and Africanity), and eating an “I-tal” (natural, vegetarian diet. Religious rituals include prayer services, smoking ganja (marijuana) to achieve better meditation with Jah.
Teaching Rastafarianism invariably means submitting to a prescribed way of life. And wrongly, to call for a “global” recognition of an inalienable right to a religion of choice, at the same time, calls for a recognition of all of the above, for they form the basic principles that underpin the faith ” rastafarian ”. From the horse’s own mouth, these are the rights that the young man in the care of his father tries to enforce.
Achimota like any educational, religious or administrative or private cooperative or other body have requirements that are rightly discriminatory under the law. The Ayarna v. Agyemang and Nartey v. Gati provide a rational and legitimate basis for discrimination. The case of Neurtey Korboe v. Amosa emphasizes that this justifiable discrimination is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
2. The justified discrimination passes the PROPORTIONALITY TEST, also known as the Oakes Test, as demonstrated in Republic v Tommy Thompson Books Ltd (# 2), because the Rastafarian boy is under 18 years old. Article 14 (1) e) declares that: “Everyone has the right to his personal liberty and no one may be deprived of his personal liberty except for the purposes of education or the welfare of a person who has not reached the age of 18. And so Article 14 (1) (e) of the 1992 Constitution is instructive.
Personal freedom is the right of an individual to behave as he sees fit, except for the restrictions imposed by the laws and codes of conduct of the society in which one lives to safeguard physical, moral, political well-being. and economic of others. I dare say that freedom doesn’t have much to do with the right to move, but rather focuses on the freedom to live by your beliefs, principles, religion and to do whatever you want without fear or abuse. This right may be restricted in Ghana for the EDUCATION purpose of a person who has not reached the age of 18.
Let us take a critical look at the letter and content of Article 25 (Rights to education) specifically 25 (b) secondary school in its various forms must be generalized and accessible to all by all appropriate means… This means it is unconstitutional to make rules of justified discrimination / obligation to regulate the enjoyment of these rights? This will bring us to 12 (2) which emphasizes that rights are subject to the rights and freedoms of others (enjoyment of equal rights) and to the public interest.
For the sake of clarification, the country’s supreme court has poignantly defined the scope of what constitutes the public interest. In the landmark Ablakwa V Obetsebi-Lamptey case, the court attributed a narrow connotation to the public interest. The court, in its ingenuity, maintains that an act which affects a part of the population can be deemed to harm the public interest.
3. Let me help you define “discriminate”. Article 17 (3) states that “discriminate” means to accord different treatment to identical or similar persons solely or mainly on the basis of their respective descriptions by race, place of origin, political opinions, color, sex, profession, religion. or belief that persons of one description are subject to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of another description are not or are granted privileges or benefits which are not accorded to persons or to another description.
I am arguing so far that the boy who is asked to shave his hair will be illegally discriminatory if another religious group of students are allowed to keep their hair as they please or go against the same rules that are enforced. to this young man. The Nartey v. Gati says: “This certainly does not mean that everyone under Ghanaian jurisdiction has, or should have, exactly the same rights as everyone else within the jurisdiction. Such a position is simply not feasible.
Soldiers, police, students and judges, for example, have certain rights that other people do not. Just because they have such rights does not mean that they violate Article 17. Rigid equality of treatment would often lead to unfair and unequal results.
As a result, it is widely recognized that equality before the law requires equal treatment of those in a similar situation. The provision that all persons are equal before the law must therefore be understood in such a context, taking into account the fact that there are no absolute rights contained in the 1992 Constitution of 1992.
This authority is clear on this issue because the young man who, like other young academically graduated students, submitted to the demands of the school. They are all equally placed and should be treated the same, allowing the young man to smoke ganja, wear locks, Rastafari clothing or anything that does not follow the rules and regulations of the school to which past and current students have been subjected to is blatant discrimination. And that is injustice.
4. Finally, Achimota did not deny him admission because of his religious beliefs. They only asked him as a child to submit to the school rules and regulations. No one is above the law because of their superior, variable and subjective religious beliefs.
There is a condition to be fulfilled by everyone and not just him. Taylor J poignantly poses the case of MARHABA ET OTHERS V. THE REPUBLIC [1978] that, “it is obvious that everything that relates to human needs and the way to meet them is purely empirical and subject to constant change and that there is therefore not a single rule of law whose positive content can be fixed.
The only thing that one can hazard with regard to the content of the law is, as Thomas Aquinas would have it, that it must have as its own object the well-being of the whole community, that is to say – to say that the strictly understood law must have as its object scheduling. of the common good “
5. Muslims, Christians, traditionalists, etc. have attended school over the years and have been subject to the same body of law. How special is his case? Don’t we have Rastafarians without locks? We do, but unfortunately we don’t have a past or present Achimota student with locks, so it will be illegally discriminatory to admit it. He qualifies for other schools, it is not imperative for a Rastafarian to attend Achimota.
I doubt his religion would also make it a prerequisite for being a good Rastafarian. It is common knowledge that Achimota has admitted over the years children of different religions and cultures who are fully aware of the requirements of the school and apply to the rules and regulations of the school which are part of the body or sources of the laws envisaged in Article 11 of the 1992 Constitution.
If a citizen chooses to join the security services i.e. Ghana Armed Forces, Police Force, etc., he or she submits to rules and regulations which are rightly discriminatory. If a Christian goes to the mosque to worship on Sunday because there is no church nearby, he will have to take off his shoes and follow their rules. Christians are not prevented from entering a sanctuary, but you must obey their discriminatory rules rightly.
6. Honestly, I would very much like to see the lawyers representing the young Rastafari address the judges of the court in traditional African attire. They can highlight all of Chapter Five of the 1992 Constitution which states a plethora of human rights provisions and they could end up being thrown out of court.
The law has exceptions for a reason, let’s learn to take notes of these main exceptions to the law instead of taking a popular, obvious, and emotional stand on the issues.
–
The writer, Theophilus Kwampong Abuah, is a social activist, student leader and final year student at GIMPA Law School.
Source link
