A Supreme Court nominee Justice Hafista Amaleboba has stirred legal and public discourse following her assertion that students attending faith-based schools cannot claim religious discrimination if they are asked to participate in denominational worship, provided they were informed of such practices before enrolling.
Appearing before Parliament’s Appointments Committee, the 52-year-old Court of Appeal judge argued that informed school choice removes the element of coercion, and thus, any claim of religious infringement would be unfounded.

Religious Participation is Voluntary

Justice Amaleboba maintained that students who willingly enroll in religious institutions do so with the knowledge of the school’s values and practices.

Therefore, she said, participating in religious activities like Mass or prayers is not a violation of constitutional rights if students were made aware of these expectations at the time of admission.

“If you are in a Catholic school, having chosen a Catholic school, knowing it is a Catholic school… and you were informed prior to it, and you still chose to attend, then to me it would mean that is not compulsion,” she said. “So it’s not a compulsion, it’s a voluntary act.”

She added that the freedom to practise one’s religion, as guaranteed under Article 21(1)(c) of the 1992 Constitution, does not mean schools cannot have religious frameworks, especially when those frameworks are part of the institutional identity.

Debate Over Religious Autonomy

Her comments followed a question from Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, who cited the example of Catholic schools compelling non-Catholic students to attend Mass. Justice Amaleboba responded that such policies are acceptable if students were notified before admission and are not forced to renounce their own beliefs.

“The fact that the school has asked you to worship in a certain kind of way does not prevent you from worshiping in your own way,” she explained, reinforcing the idea that religious exposure in school settings does not necessarily equate to religious compulsion.

She emphasized that rights, including religious freedoms, are not without limits and must be balanced against institutional practices and the public interest.

Moral Good vs. Legal Obligation

When probed about whether faith-based schools should provide alternate arrangements for students of other religions, Justice Amaleboba acknowledged it would be ideal but stopped short of saying it is a legal necessity.

“I think they should create that opportunity… it is a good thing to do,” she said. However, she clarified that such accommodation remains a moral rather than a constitutional obligation.

This distinction could have significant consequences for how inclusive schools must be in practice, especially those receiving government support.

Afenyo-Markin pointed to the 2021 case involving Achimota Senior High School, where a High Court ruled that denying admission to Rastafarian students based on their dreadlocks was a violation of their religious rights.

The ruling referenced several constitutional provisions, including Articles 12, 17, and 21, and emphasized that no public institution could override a citizen’s right to manifest their faith.

Justice Amaleboba’s interpretation, that pre-informed choice effectively nullifies future religious freedom claims, appears to conflict with the spirit of the Achimota decision, which prioritized the rights of individuals over institutional preferences.

Rights and Redress

Despite her position, Justice Amaleboba acknowledged that individuals who feel wronged can still seek legal redress.

“Everybody has a right to proceed to the law courts if they feel that some right of theirs has been infringed,” she noted.

This position underscores the judiciary’s role in resolving disputes, even if her personal judicial philosophy does not align with potential claims.

Broader Implications for Religious Freedom in Education

Her stance touches a broader nerve in Ghana’s educational system, where public and mission-based institutions often operate side by side.

Many of these mission schools retain strong denominational traditions despite serving students from multiple religious backgrounds.

Justice Amaleboba’s remarks, if reflected in future Supreme Court rulings, could recalibrate the balance between religious accommodation and institutional identity in public education.

Her interpretation suggests that informed consent to a school’s ethos may limit the scope of constitutional claims on religious freedom within those settings.