In the cas of the Rastafarian students and Achimota school, the high court rules..
1. This ordeal the Applicant was subjected to by isolating him from the other students, in my view, constituted an embarrassment and caused much inconvenience to the Applicant.
2. His sin was his insistence to hold on to his religion and the manifestation thereof. The conduct of the 1st Respondent (Achimota) in the treatment of the Applicant, does not accord administrative prudence and fairness.
3. Article 23 of the 1992 constitution states that:
Administrative bodies and administrative officials shall act fairly and reasonably and comply with the requirements imposed on them by law and persons aggrieved by the exercise of such acts and decisions shall have the right to seek redress before a court or other tribunal.
4. Under our current constitution, administrative justice is a human right. Persons wielding administrative authority must exercise same in tune with the law. The 1st respondent (Achimota) failed to properly act in tune with the dictates of administrative justice by refusing to accept the Applicant’s acceptance form and enroll him, simply because he stood by manifestation of his religion.