Maintain Religious Traditions and Practices in Parochial Institutions

By Dr. Samuel Adjei Sarfo

Attorney and Counselor at Law

There is a heated debate going on as to whether or not Muslims in Ghanaian mission schools ought to take part in religious devotional meetings within these schools. This debate was initially instigated by a demonstration in the Western Region by Muslim students to decry discrimination against them. Soon thereafter, the Minister of Communications, Dr. Omane Boamah, issued a statement instructing Heads of ALL educational institutions not to compel students to take part in religious services. This was to be followed by similar statements made by the president and other government officials specifically prohibiting religious institutions from forcing students to attend morning devotions and other religious activities. Thereafter, the National Council of Catholic Bishops issued a counter directive instructing heads of Catholic institutions to adhere resolutely to the religious traditions and practices of the mission schools. In the face of all these, a citizen has taken the matter to the Supreme Court, asking the court to declare as unconstitutional the requirements in ALL Ghanaian schools that students attend religious services. Thus the stage is now set for confusion about what the schools are supposed to do regarding their religious devotions and practices.

This pending confusion is the fault of the government. All the statements made by it are simply knee-jerk reactions without any legal foundation. Because this whole issue is a purely legal matter to be determined by the courts, and it appears government’s team of counsels has not been productive in giving good advice. What happens regarding religious freedom is a matter of a law ensconced within the constitution. How does this freedom fare within our mission schools vis a vis the present conflict?

To answer this question, we must first draw a definitive distinction between the schools we have in Ghana. We do have the parochial schools which are also known as the mission schools. They were originally set up by the churches as expression of their religious freedom to set up such schools, and also as a method of their religious proselytization. Then we have the private schools (sometimes known as the Charter Schools) as set up by certain groups and individuals for whatever educational purposes these will have in mind. Then finally, there is the public school system set up by the government with its original intent to provide purely secular education. All these category of schools have their strict internal policies and programs. But in particular, the mission schools have significant portions of their curriculum devoted to the teaching of their ethos and mores. And their religious traditions and practices have undergirded their founding and given them their very nature and character from the very beginning.

It was with this backdrop that the Rawlings’ regime decided to make these religious institutions government assisted schools where the government provided personnel and tax money to support them. At the time that decision was made, there was no requirement to interfere with the internal policies and principles within these schools. Thus, the government’s support for these schools was blanket, insofar as the missions retained their influences within their own school systems. In effect, the missions continued to control who was appointed heads and teachers in these schools and to determine the nature and form of their religious programs and activities. So it could be posited that whereas government came in to support these mission schools with the tax-payer money, there was no intention of government to make them secular establishments or any decision to interfere with their internal programs however religious. Government did not hinge its financial and logistical support for these mission schools on any requirement that they changed their character as religious institutions.

The government will always retain the right to condition its support of these mission schools upon their adherence to certain secular principles. Among these could definitely be the requirement that morning devotion, or any other religious activity, be not made compulsory. But that is the extent of the government’s constitutional power: to offer the carrot of assistance for the stick of secularization. The government does not have any power to freely offer tax-payer assistance to these schools and thereafter enter the mission schools to instruct them to abandon their character- their age-old customs, traditions and practices which have hitherto been accepted as legal.

If the government had done any such thing, it would have amounted to an infringement of their religious freedom. For those religious bodies established their schools and institutions as part of their mission to spread their doctrines and theology, and their schools are therefore an appendage of their religious establishment. If the government came in to support them unconditionally, it is reasonable to argue that they have no obligation to change their internal rules and regulations on the basis of any governmental fiat. The extent of the government’s constitutional authority over these institutions consists in its withdrawal of its assistance, nothing more nothing less. It is nobody’s constitutional right to say that these institutions are government funded, and therefore they must be necessarily secular or even diverse. This was not a requirement when the government decided to assist and fund these educational institutions. So they have a strong legal foundation to continue with their character.

What can lawfully happen is that the government could decide to defund these institutions unless they agree to its terms of financial assistance. Citizen tax-payers can also bring law suits to compel the government to desist from using tax-payer money to fund these mission schools. And this will be a solid constitutional exercise to separate the church from the state. But as long as the government has decided to assist these schools without any strings attached, and as long as nobody has challenged this funding in any court of law, nobody has the constitutional right to interfere with their character.

Those citing Article 21(c) of Ghana’s constitution on religious freedom have got it all lop-sided. Mission schools have been part and parcel of our educational system from the very beginning. In fact, Ghana’s whole educational system originated with them. Since time immemorial, these schools have been recognized within the legal framework of the country as having certain definitive characteristics. They have had their own unique customs, traditions and practices from the very beginning, and they are establishments that are arms of the religious missions and symbols of their right to the expression of their religious freedom. As I have said, government’s support for these establishments, insofar as it is gratuitous, does not transmute them into secular public schools. If these schools were to force anybody to enroll, then they would be infringing on others’ religious freedom. However, if anybody enrolls and insists that these schools should change their customs, traditions and practices to suit that person’s predilections, that person would be the one infringing on the missions’ religious freedom to establish and run their parochial schools.

It is disingenuous to quote the constitution to assert any right over somebody’s religious establishment as an exercise of your religious freedom. If the constitution was intended to give a sweeping obligation for all publically funded schools to comply with secular practices, it would have so stated. If we were to ask the framers of the constitution whether it was their intent to abolish the traditional practices and customs in parochial schools as an expression of the religious freedom of others, they would have answered resolutely in the negative. Likewise, if it were government’s policy to subvert the religious traditions and practices in the mission schools, it would have made it a precondition for their funding and assistance. But at the time the government decided to fund and assist these mission schools, it did not declare as a precondition any intention to vary their internal programs. So why now?

Mission school grounds are an extension of the sacred space of certain religious bodies. Religious freedom does not mean one’s freedom to interfere with others’ religious space. It implies respect for others to set up their own sacred space and to determine its customs, traditions and practices within the ambit of the law. If anyone chooses to enter the religious space of another, it is incumbent upon the person to respect the rules and regulations of the sacred space, and not to make any demands to switch things around. Government’s support for these religious spaces does not per se secularize these places. Thus the government’s instructions to these institutions not to force any religious sect to attend the religious programs of mission schools is per se ultra vires, and must be totally ignored. This is because no government anywhere has any authority to interfere with the internal, legitimate programs of parochial institutions, insofar as no parochial institution has any power to force anybody to be present on its sacred grounds.

Samuel Adjei Sarfo, JD, MA, BA, etc. is an Attorney and Counselor at Law, a Teacher of Lore, Certified High School English Educator, Researcher and Scholar. He can be reached at sarfoadjei@yahoo.com