The lawsuit against Wesley Girls Senior High School (SHS) in Ghana is a pivotal Supreme Court case. It challenges the boundaries of religious freedom and institutional rights under Ghana's 1992 Constitution. The central legal question is whether a school, founded on Christian principles by the Methodist Church and substantially state-funded, can restrict the religious practices of its minority Muslim students. This conflict occurs in a national context where 71.3% of the population is Christian and 19.9% is Muslim, highlighting the significance of minority accommodation.

 

Genesis of the Case and Core Claims

The controversy began when Wesley Girls SHS authorities allegedly denied Muslim students the right to fast during Ramadan. Private legal practitioner Shafic Osman filed the suit on December 24, 2024, invoking the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. The Plaintiff argues that restrictions on practices like wearing the hijab and fasting violate constitutional guarantees of religious freedom, specifically Article 21(1)(c) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to practice any religion.

The Defendants are the Board of Directors of Wesley Girls SHS and the Ghana Education Service (GES), with the Attorney General (AG) also joined. The Supreme Court must now interpret the Constitution to clarify individual religious rights within state-assisted institutions.

Opposing Declarations: Individual Rights vs. Christian Heritage and Systemic Rigidity

The Plaintiff, Mr. Osman, asserts that the Constitution guarantees freedom of worship. He contends that no school should coerce students to follow its religious practices.

The Wesley Girls School Board publicly denied all discrimination allegations. It asserts that any reported restrictions were misinterpreted. The school maintains its right to uphold its established Christian values.

Former GES Director-General Dr. Charles Aheto-Tsegah warned that the highly regimented nature of Ghana’s boarding schools makes full religious accommodation difficult. He emphasised that the school is a system that is "programmed," with a precise, minute-by-minute schedule from a typical 4:30 AM wake-up call to 10:00 PM lights-out. Integrating varied observances requires a "very interesting reconfiguration."

 

AG and Methodist Church Defend Institutional Identity

The Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Dominic Ayine, filed a formal response backing the school's policies. The AG argues that WGHS, owned and operated by the Methodist Church, is entitled to maintain rules consistent with its heritage. Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem-Sai affirmed that government financial support does not override the school’s religious rights.

The Methodist Church emphasises that mission schools predate the Ghanaian state. It contends that state funding must not be misconstrued as authority to redefine church-founded institutions. The Church warned that allowing parallel religious practices could cause administrative challenges and fracture communal unity.

The Ghana Catholic Bishops’ Conference (GCBC) and the Christian Council of Ghana (CCG) underscored their proprietary claim over their institutions, stating that the schools' establishment was an "expression of our missionary mandate." The Churches maintain that state support is a partnership, not a takeover of ownership. They cautioned that allowing diverse religious practices, including separate prayer schedules, could fracture communal unity and discipline.

 

Political Tension and Advocacy

The lawsuit sparked significant political and public debate. Education Minister Haruna Iddrisu publicly defended students' rights. He stated that the government would not countenance any action that denies a Ghanaian girl the opportunity to practice her religion. This stance highlights a political dilemma between the Minister’s defense of rights and the AG’s legal defense of the school's identity.

Interior Minister Muntaka Mubarak cautioned against growing intolerance in all faith-based schools. He urged institutions to ensure fairness and respect for religious diversity. He noted the generally high standard of accommodation in Christian mission schools, stating, "I can say with authority that over 80% of these Christian-based schools are very accommodating." However, he also warned that "Some of the Muslim schools are beginning to also do" discriminatory practices, such as restricting lunch for non-Muslim students during Ramadan. He insisted that such intolerance must be addressed firmly, regardless of its source.

Public advocates like Kofi Asare questioned the necessity of the restrictions, noting that Muslim students observe Ramadan at other Christian schools like PRESEC Legon. The case is widely seen as an opportunity to address a systemic issue of religious non-accommodation. Democracy Hub was granted leave to file an amicus curiae brief, confirming the broad public interest in the constitutional implications.

 

Scope of Demands and MoU Adherence

The core demands and institutional positions have been sharply defined. The National Muslim Conference of Ghana (NMCG) clarified that Muslim students are seeking only the right to pray, fast, and not be compelled to attend church activities. They are not requesting the construction of mosques. The NMCG cited the GES Directive on Religious Tolerance (2015) and the April 2024 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as proof of the unconstitutionality of suppression. The MoU, involving mission schools and religious authorities, requires respect for religious diversity.

In its official response, the Methodist Church Ghana committed to defending its interests in court. It reiterated its rejection of discrimination, pointing to WGHS's nearly two-century history of educating students from diverse faiths. The Church asserted that discrimination is inconsistent with Christian teaching. It clarified that students are only expected to adhere to an established framework for unity and discipline. The Church explicitly confirmed its full adherence to the 2024 MoU.

 

Global Precedent: Comparative Religious Governance

Ghana's constitutional dilemma is mirrored globally, with varied resolutions.

• Africa/Asia: Decisions often favor constitutional rights. In Nigeria, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Muslim students wearing the hijab in affiliated schools.
• Europe (UK/France): Approaches differ. The United Kingdom subjects state-funded faith schools to anti-discrimination laws. France enforces strict secularism (laïcité) in public schools, limiting conspicuous religious expression for all.
• Americas (US): The U.S. model focuses on government neutrality in fully secular schools. This model is less relevant given Ghana's mission-owned system.

The Ghanaian court’s final judgment will determine whether its legal interpretation aligns with the constitutional protections seen in parts of Africa or the institutional balancing acts common in Europe. The ruling will reshape how religious pluralism is balanced with institutional autonomy in Ghana's educational system, setting a precedent for all faith-based, government-assisted secondary schools.