I have read with dismay, reports that the judge in the case involving Achimota School and some Rastafarian students has given a judgment against Achimota School and has accordingly ordered the school to admit the Rastafarian students.

I am dismayed because I think the judgment is unsound. But first, let me note that I am not a lawyer. And because of that I usually stay away from matters of law, given the tricky nature of law. But I just couldn’t let this one pass. Indeed, common sense must prevail even in the face of the law.

Before anyone starts to accuse me of not respecting people’s human rights or of being anti-Rastafarian, let me state categorically that personally, I don’t have any problem with anybody wearing a dreadlock hairstyle (dreadlocks) to school anywhere. But similarly, I don’t see anything wrong with any school disallowing its students from wearing dreadlocks. I mean, it’s a matter of institutional policy, period.

Let no one tell me that by refusing to admit a prospective student who insists on wearing dreadlocks to school (against the school's rule), Achimota School is violating such a person’s fundamental human rights. I don’t believe that such a rule by Achimota School, or any school for that matter, has anything to do with one’s human rights, freedom of religion or freedom of association or whatever freedoms… real or imagined.

Back in the day, you could not even wear common “afro” hairdo in many secondary schools. And there was absolutely no problem with that. What is wrong with a school insisting that its students should wear a low haircut, which it might consider appropriate for its student body? How different is that from a secondary school insisting that its male students should not wear long moustache or long beard? Can anyone tell me?

Now, the question I have for this judge is, would she also pass a judgment that orders the Military to admit a prospective recruit who insists on wearing the dreadlock hairstyle in the Forces? Or would she pass a judgment that orders the Police to admit a prospective recruit who insists on wearing dreadlocks in the Service? Both the Military and the Police require their members to wear a certain low-cut hairstyle. And that is almost universal. And you mean to tell me that military and police forces around the world are violating their members’ fundamental human rights? Come on! Let's be real.

The Military is an institution, and it has its own rules. If you decide to join the Forces, you abide by the rules. Take it or leave it! Similarly, the Police is an institution, with its own rules; and if you decide to join the Service you abide by the rules… Take it or leave it. So, I ask again, would this judge pass similar judgment against the Military or the Police? If no, then why Achimota School? Or why any school? Isn’t a school an institution too?

By the way, what is this judge’s position on Boys’ school versus Girls’ school versus mixed school? Why should some schools insist that they’d only admit boys and others insist that they’d only admit girls? Why is it that one can’t have say, his daughter to attend any boys’ school in Ghana? Why? Isn’t that a violation of one’s human rights and freedom of association? And if not, why is Achimota's hairstyle rule a human rights issue?

I believe that there may be many secondary schools out there in Ghana that do not have the same hairstyle policy as Achimota School. That doesn’t mean that Achimota is doing anything wrong. Different schools have different policies or rules. And these Rastafarian students are free to apply to any other school that may be only too happy to admit them. But Achimota must not be forced or compelled to admit any student who refuses to abide by the institution’s rule.

If you choose to join the military, you don’t expect the military to change its institutional rules for you. And the same logic should apply in this Achimota School-Rastafarian students’ case. In my humble opinion, Achimota’s hairstyle rule has nothing to do with the students’ fundamental human rights. On the contrary, I’d submit that it’s rather Achimota School that’s having its fundamental rights as an institution attacked by this rather unsound judgment.

Sometimes I wonder why some people tend to think that their freedoms have no limits. But your freedom stops where mine starts and vice versa. Moreover, I don’t believe that rights accrue only to individual citizens of a nation, but rights must also accrue to entities such as corporates or institutions within the society. And the same principle must apply… your rights stop where the other’s start.

As a country, we seem to be taking this freedom thing a notch too far. And if we don’t take care, it will soon blow up in our faces!