FeaturesEdited by James Joseph, Managing Editor for Long-Form Content
In this interview for JURIST, Lana Osei JURIST’s Chief West Africa Correspondent based in Ghana, and Halima Abena Kyerewah Adam from the University of Cape Coast Faculty of Law speak with Shafic Osman a Ghanaian lawyer and plaintiff in a groundbreaking case of religious liberty in Ghana’s education system on the motivations and implications of his lawsuit filed against the Board of Governors of Wesley Girls’ Senior High School, the Education Service, and the Attorney General in Ghana. Osman’s legal challenge addresses the policy of religious non-accommodation in mission schools, particularly Wesley Girls’ High School, which prohibits Muslim students from practicing their faith. His inspiration stems from personal experiences and broader incidents involving religious discrimination in schools. Shafic emphasizes the constitutional obligations to uphold religious freedom under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, advocating for a more inclusive interpretation of religious rights in public institutions.
The care is bought under Articles 12,17(1) and (2), 21(1)(b),(c)(e) and 26 of the 1992 Constitution and International Human Rights cognisable under Article 33(5)o f the Constitution of Ghana, 1992.
He calls for the court to instruct the Ghana Education Service to establish guidelines for religious accommodation in schools, reflecting on the necessity for public spaces to respect diverse religious practices. The public reaction is mixed, with discussions about the expectations of attending a mission school, but Shafic highlights the importance of legal recourse in challenging extreme non-accommodation. The case is still in its early stages, with court proceedings expected to unfold as responses from the defendants are awaited.
As Ghanaians await the decision of the highest court of the land in the case of Shafic Osman v Board of Governors of Wesley Girls’ Senior High School, Education Service and the Attorney General as to whether or not a public mission school can compel its students of diverse faiths to comply with a particular religious practice, JURIST staff correspondent in Ghana, Halima Abena Kyerewah Adam, discussed with the plaintiff of the matter before the court on what his inspiration and motivation is with regards to instituting the action before the court.
JURIST: Mr. Osman, could you start by telling us a bit about yourself? Additionally, since this appears to be a novel issue before the Ghanaian Supreme court, what motivated you to initiate this lawsuit?
Shafi Osman: My name is Shafic Osman. I am a lawyer by training and currently a PhD student in international law at the London School of Economics. My interest in this case stems from a long-standing concern about religious freedoms in Ghanaian institutions of learning, especially senior high schools with boarding facilites.
I attended Presbyterian Boys’ Secondary School (PRESEC) in Accra, where religious accommodations were extended to religious minorities. As a Muslim, I was able to practice my faith freely, and this is largely the experience of many students from other schools, even in all girls schools like Holy Child and Mfantsiman. However, Wesley Girls’ High School has repeatedly faced allegations of preventing Muslim students from practicing their faith.
Growing up, I often heard of such incidents, including a tragic case at Adisadel College, where a Muslim student who reportedly resisted compulsory attendance of church, fell from the third floor while trying to escape a teacher enforcing this school rule. More recently, in December 2023, reports resurfaced about Wesley Girls’ preventing Muslim students from practicing their faith, echoing similar reports from 2021 when a student was compelled to break her Ramadan fast.
On December 25, 2023, I publicly expressed my frustration, particularly towards parents who continued to send their children to such schools without embracing the need to pursue legal action when the school pushed back on the religious rights of their children. My position was that if a school imposes unconstitutional restrictions, legal action should be pursued. My tweet sparked a conversation with a close colleague, Victor Azure, who is now the lead lawyer on this case. While I am an applicant, my role is not as legal counsel—two of my colleagues are representing me in court. He reminded me of our privilege as lawyers and the duty that imposes on us to take such issues up.
This case is not just about individual grievances; it raises fundamental constitutional questions. Under Article 2(1) of the Ghanaian Constitution, every citizen has the right to challenge unconstitutional acts. As lawyers, we bear an even greater duty to uphold these rights and ensure legal recourse for those affected.
Recognizing this, we assembled a team of two other lawyers, both of whom are good friends of mine. Aziz Gomda, and Nahaja Adam who is also a PhD student. We are also assisted by a paralegal who has been very dutiful to this cause, Sadiq. Together, we saw this as not just a legal case but a civic obligation to uphold religious freedoms and challenge policies that contradict constitutional protections. This case is ultimately about ensuring that all students in Ghana, regardless of faith, have the right to practice their religion without undue restrictions.”
JURIST: Was there a specific action by the school that prompted you to initiate this case? Or, is the case based on a broader pattern of restrictions that, in your view, infringe on the constitutional rights of Muslim students to freely practice their religion?
Shafic Osman :Yes. There have been multiple instances of similar issues occurring over the years. The most prominent one that caught national attention was in 2021 when a Muslim student at Wesley Girls’ was prevented from fasting during Ramadan. The story went viral across social media platforms—Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp—prompting former students to share their experiences regarding what many described as the school’s de facto “no-Islam policy.” That incident remained at the back of our minds, but even before then, we were aware of various manifestations of non-accommodation of Muslim students.
To clarify, I use the term “non-accommodation” rather than discrimination because these situations exist on a spectrum. For example, I attended Presbyterian Boys’ Secondary School (PRESEC), where Muslim students did not face any restrictions on fasting or prayer. We had designated prayer spaces and could observe Ramadan without issue. However, there was a school policy stating that only Presbyterian students could be elected as head boy. While I personally did not consider that a major issue, it does raise constitutional questions. Perhaps in the future—five, ten, or fifteen years from now—someone may challenge such policies in court, and it would be a valid legal question to examine.
At the other end of the spectrum, we see more restrictive policies like those at Wesley Girls’, where students are not permitted to manifest any aspect of their religious identity if it does not align with the school’s Methodist ethos. Whether it is wearing a hijab, observing fasting, or even choosing not to participate in religious activities as an atheist, students in these schools face systemic barriers to their right to manifest or not manifest a faith.
For us, what triggered this case was the recurrence of the same issue in December 2023—Muslim students at Wesley Girls’ once again reported being prevented from practicing their religion. At that moment, my colleagues and I, as lawyers, felt a professional and constitutional duty to act. We became lawyers to advocate for justice, and if this issue has persisted for decades without resolution, then it falls on us to challenge it.
Interestingly, as we delved deeper into the case and spoke with affected students and parents, we learned that some parents had indeed tried to pursue legal action in the past. However, there seems to be inertia within the legal system—perhaps due to the perception that such cases are too controversial or difficult to win. But my colleagues and I are still young, still idealistic, and we believe that change is possible. That’s why we decided to take this case up.
JURIST: How has the public responded to this case? Do you believe that Wesley Girls’ policies reflect broader societal attitudes toward religious accommodation in Ghana? Given the long history of similar incidents, do you see this as part of a deeper systemic issue?
Shafic Osman: Regarding public reaction, I was actually more encouraged. I actually thought it would have been horrible. There has been significant debate, particularly about whether Wesley Girls’, as a Methodist school, has the right to impose its religious rules—some argue that students should accept the school’s traditions upon enrollment, following the “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” principle. However, I am not overly concerned by this perspective because one of the strengths of a constitutional republic with an active judiciary is the ability to challenge such questions before the courts.
What we are asking the court to determine is whether this form of religious non-accommodation in some Ghanaian public schools—where students cannot fast, pray, or even be seen holding religious artifacts, is constitutional. If we truly wish to grow as a nation, we must confront these issues.
Additionally, history provides important context. In the first republic of this country parliament had a more enlightened understanding of the role to be played by public institutions of learning in fostering national unity. Section 22 of the Education Act (Act 87), passed in 1961, explicitly prohibited schools from compelling students to engage in religious practices contrary to their parents’ beliefs. This suggests that such restrictions have not persisted for “hundreds of years,” as some argue. In fact, during parliamentary discussions in the early 1960s, lawmakers noted that Ghana, by enacting such a law, was more progressive than even the UK at the time.
Of course, societal attitudes have shifted over time, particularly with the rise of evangelical movements in Ghana, which have shaped national discourse on religious expression. That’s a separate but related conversation.
Now, as for public response—Ghana is still evolving, and resistance to change is expected. Even in progressive societies like the UK or the US, Islamophobia and religious intolerance persist. However, I was heartened by the reaction to our case. While Muslim communities welcomed it, many Christians also supported it, as they had long questioned the rationale behind these policies. Naturally, a vocal minority still insists that students should simply conform to school traditions, but this case provides an opportunity to critically examine and address these issues.
JURIST: Is the relief you’re seeking from the court aimed at the general accommodation of Muslims in the country, or is it specific to the defendant school?
Shafic Osman: Our case specifically challenges Wesley Girls’ “No Islam” policy. We’re asking the court to direct the Ghana Education Service (GES) to develop guidelines on religious accommodation in public institutions of learning. While this case pertains to schools, our broader goal is to address religious accommodation in public spaces at large. The rights to religious freedom under Article 21(1)(c) and 56 of the 1992 Constitution should mean that public institutions make reasonable accommodations for students’ religious practices. We are advocating for a framework that ensures religious rights are respected in schools, setting a national precedent for public institutions to balance accommodation with practical considerations.
JURIST: In your arguments, you mention the constitutional requirement for religious accommodation in public institutions. Can you explain how this relates to your case, and how you view the balance between individual rights and institutional needs, particularly within public schools? Were there any precedents or cases that supported your stance?
The issue is that religious rights should only be limited when necessary and proportional, as per spirit and various interpretations of Article 21 of the Constitution. We argue that public institutions, like schools, must respect all religious beliefs and provide reasonable accommodation. We’re challenging the insistence that all students must necessarily adopt Methodist practices while at Wesley Girls’ School. The court’s declaration and consequential orders on this affects all schools at the end of the day. It is an opportunity to create more inclusive and accommodating public spaces in Ghana.
While there are no direct precedents, the case on the National Cathedral highlights Ghana’s accommodating approach to religion. We also believe the Ghana Education Service (GES) should develop guidelines for religious accommodation through a consultative process. Other schools, like Presec, Achimota School, Holy Child etc, manage religious diversity without compromising education, and we think Wesley Girls should follow suit.
Previously, GES started but abandoned a stakeholder engagement process. We believe this must be revisited to ensure true integration and respect for religious rights in public institutions.
JURIST: How is the case progressing, and what are your final remarks?
Shafic Osman : At the moment, we’re waiting to hear from the court regarding service on the responding parties, after which we can begin counting the days for the other party to respond to our arguments. Our case is not complex. At its core, it’s a constitutional matter about creating an inclusive space for people of all religious backgrounds. This is not just about Muslims versus Christians, but about making Ghana a more inclusive society. Ultimately, the case is about how we build a more inclusive
