The Human Rights Division of the Accra High Court today gave a landmark ruling in the case involving the Achimota School and two Rastafarian boys but only one journalist was allowed access into the courtroom.

The court specifically ordered that it will not allow any other person entry except the parties and their lawyers.

Journalists who were adamant were discovered and sacked from the courtroom as well.

As a result, the inky fraternity together with some family members and well-wishers of the Rastefarian boys, Tyron Ira’s Marhguy and Oheneba Kweku Nkrabea, had to wait at the court entrance for over an hour.

Although the building housing the Human Rights Court ‘1’ and others, made it impossible for a large crowd of people to be accommodated in the courtroom at a goal, members of the inky fraternity somehow were disappointed.

Their disappointment resulted from the fact that given the nature of the case, the court should have been a bit considerate with its decision in that respect.

Thus, it took the intervention of an officer of the Judicial Service for the court to allow media to have a representative to hear the verdict passed by Justice Gifty Agyei Addo.

Meanwhile, the court Justice Agyei Addo in her ruling ordered that the Achimota School admits the Rastafarian boys.

The following is the court’s decision:

The respondents do not dispute the fact the at the rules of the school are made by the Board of Governors of the school but the implementation of these rules must be in conformity with the rules of the Ghana Education Service and the 1992 Constitution.

What has the wearing of dreadlocks which is the manifestation of one’s religious rights got to do with upholding discipline in the school?

To maintain that a person must cut their dreadlocks which is the manifestation of their religion before they are admitted into the school sins against the 1992 Constitution.

I reject the argument of the respondents that upholding the reliefs of the applicant will discriminate against other students who abide by the rules of the school.

Fundamental human rights are not absolute and can be limited by statutes and policies but this must be juxtaposed with the public interest as in this current case.

What reasonable justification has been put before this court in the implementation of the school rules to convince the court to rule in favour of the respondents?

The ultimate aim of the rules is to enhance discipline and academic excellence.

What will be the effect on the school community if the applicant is allowed to keep his dreadlocks?

How keeping low hair enhances hygiene in the school has not been impressed on this court and how the applicant keeping his dreadlocks would affect his health and the health of other students has also not been impressed on the court.

The ultimate aim of the rules of the school is omnibus and I am unable to see the disadvantage to the school community in allowing the applicant to keep his dreadlocks.

Ordering the applicant to cut his dreadlocks which is the manifestation of his religion which is Rastafarianism and his culture discriminates against his fundamental human rights and this would not be countenanced by this court.

From the foregoingThe failure and refusal by the school to admit the applicant because of his dreadlocks which is the manifestation of his religion is a violation of his fundamental human right.

The order directed at the applicant to step aside during the registration exercise because of his dreadlocks is breach of his dignity and no rightful basis has been provided by the school to interfere with the religious rights of the applicant.