Child Rights International has assisted Tyron Iras Marhguy, one of the Rastafarian students who was refused admission by Achimota School, to affirm his fundamental human right in court.
The applicant who filed the instant action before the Accra High Court is seeking the enforcement and declaration of Tyron’s right to education.
Suing through his father, Tereo Kwame Marhguy, the applicant also filed an interlocutory injunction seeking the court to compel Achimota to admit the children to further their education pending the determination of the substantive case.
The application for interlocutory injunction will be heard by the court on April 13, 2021.
The issue of refusal of admission to master Tyron Iras Marhguy by the headmistress of the school became the talk of the town a few weeks ago, with the Ghana Education Service, civil society organisations, NGOs and individuals offering divergent opinions about the matter.
But the CRI which supports the cause of ensuring the fundamental rights and development of every child has risen to the defence of the family of the students to pursue the case to its logical conclusion.
The applicant is asking the court to declare that the failure and or refusal of the school to admit or enrol the applicant on the basis of his Rastafarian religious inclination, beliefs and culture characterised by his keeping of rasta is a violation of his fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution, particularly Articles 12(1); 23; 21(1)(b)(c); 26(1)); and 17(2) and (3).
Master Marhguy wants the court to declare that the failure and or refusal of the school to admit or enrol him on the basis of his Rastafarian religious inclination, beliefs and culture characterised by his keeping of rasta is a violation of his right to education guaranteed under Articles 25(1)(b),m and 28(4) the 1992 Constitution;
He prayed the court for a declaration that the order directed at him by the representative of Achimota School to step aside during the registration process on the basis of his religious belief characterised by the keeping of rasta is a violation of his right to dignity guaranteed under Articles 15(1) and 35(4),(5) of the 1992 Constitution.
A declaration that there is no lawful basis for the school to interfere with the applicant's right to education based on his rasta through which he manifests or expresses his constitutionally guaranteed right to religion and to practice and manifest same.
He further urged the court for an order directed at the school to immediately admit or enrol the applicant to continue with his education unhindered.
The applicant asked the court for an order directed at the respondents to jointly and severally compensate the applicant for the inconvenience, embarrassment, waste of time, and violation of his fundamental human rights and freedoms.