The plaintiff asks the Supreme Court to interpret Article 39(3) together with several other constitutional provisions, including Articles 17, 21(1)(a), 25(1), 26(1), 34(1), 35(3), 38(1) and 39(1). He argues that these provisions collectively protect equality, freedom of expression, educational opportunity, cultural participation, access to educational facilities and the preservation of Ghanaian culture and identity.

Alleged Shortage and Misdeployment of Ga and Dangme Teachers

A significant part of the plaintiff’s case focuses on the availability and deployment of trained Ga and Dangme language teachers in schools across the Greater Accra Region.

The statement of case refers to matters raised in 2021 by Nii Bortey Kofi Frankwa II, the Oyibi Gonten Mantse and Regent of the Nungua Mankralo Stool, who called on the Ministry of Education and the Ghana Education Service to ensure that Ga was taught in basic schools within the Greater Accra Region.

The plaintiff says the intervention identified a specific implementation problem: inadequate deployment of trained Ga and Dangme teachers to schools within the communities where the languages are traditionally spoken. He argues that teacher recruitment, training, posting, retention, supervision, and deployment fall within the responsibilities of the State’s educational authorities.

The case also mentions a 2023 intervention by the Ga Mantse, Nii Tackie Teiko Tsuru II, who called on the Government and the Ministry of Education to enforce the teaching of Ga in basic schools within the Ga jurisdiction. The plaintiff says the Ga Mantse also voiced apprehensions about the posting of Ga graduates outside the Greater Accra Region, which he argued contributed to shortages of skilled teachers capable of teaching Ga in schools within the region.

The plaintiff further points to initiatives by the Accra College of Education to train Ga and Dangme teachers. According to the statement of case, the College had admitted students to study the two languages following consultations with Ga and Dangme community leaders and had agreed to reserve admission places for each language for a minimum of five years. He argues, however, that community and institutional initiatives cannot substitute for a functioning State system for retaining, deploying and utilising trained Ga and Dangme teachers within the Greater Accra Region.

Concerns Over Institutional Support

The plaintiff relies on public concerns brought up by education stakeholders regarding the availability of Ga and Dangme teachers. He cites a 2024 warning from the Ghana Institute of Languages that Ga and other Ghanaian languages faced a serious risk of decline because of inadequate teacher availability and insufficient revitalisation efforts in basic and secondary schools. According to the plaintiff, the problem therefore extends beyond the absence of a particular subject in an individual school. He argues that the absence of a coherent and enforceable language-teaching pathway could result in the progressive loss of literacy, competence and cultural transmission among Ga-Dangme communities.

The plaintiff further refers to a September 2025 call by the Ga Mantse for the compulsory teaching of Ga and Dangme in basic schools within Ga and Dangme communities, together with teacher recruitment and training, textbooks and other learning materials, and the integration of the languages into the educational system.

Comparison With Chinese and Arabic Language Programmes

A distinctive aspect of the plaintiff’s case is his reliance on the Government’s response to the teaching of other languages as evidence of State capacity. The statement of case refers specifically to Chinese-language programmes, arguing that the State has demonstrated its ability to mobilise curriculum development institutions, engage specialist partners, develop context-specific curricula and create implementation pathways when a language is identified as strategically important.

The plaintiff expressly acknowledges that teaching Chinese, Arabic and other foreign languages can serve legitimate educational and national policy objectives. His argument is instead that the State’s demonstrated capacity to establish and support such programmes is relevant when assessing whether it has taken reasonable and effective measures to foster Ghanaian languages, as required by Article 39(3).

He similarly refers to the State’s response to staffing concerns in Arabic and Islamic education, including efforts directed at the recruitment and training of qualified Arabic instructors. The plaintiff says these examples demonstrate that a meaningful State response to a language-related educational deficit can involve identifying staffing needs, engaging affected communities, coordinating institutions, recruiting teachers, setting implementation timelines and committing resources.

Equality and Structural Disadvantage

The plaintiff argues that equality cannot be assessed solely on the basis of formal neutrality. In his view, a policy under which schools may offer languages “subject to teacher availability” can produce unequal practical consequences where the State has actively established recruitment and implementation mechanisms for some language programmes while failing to provide equivalent practical support for an indigenous language community experiencing shortages and non-deployment of trained teachers.

The plaintiff therefore contends that the alleged failure must be assessed alongside the constitutional protections relating to equality, education, culture, language and freedom of expression. He maintains that his case does not seek identical funding, instructional time or administrative arrangements for every language taught in Ghana. Rather, he asks the Court to consider whether the State has demonstrated sufficient constitutional responsiveness and institutional capacity in relation to languages expressly protected by the Constitution.

Reliefs Sought

Among other reliefs, the plaintiff is asking the Supreme Court to declare that the policy and administrative failures of the Government, acting through the Ministry of Education and the Ghana Education Service, in ensuring the effective deployment of teachers, provision of instructional materials and compulsory implementation of Ga and Dangme language education in basic schools across the Greater Accra Region constitute a violation of the State’s constitutional obligation to foster Ghanaian culture and protect minority linguistic heritage.

He is also seeking a declaration that the State’s prioritisation and allocation of public resources towards the expansion and institutionalisation of foreign-language instruction, while allegedly failing to take reasonable and effective measures to develop and institutionalise the teaching and learning of Ga and Dangme, is inconsistent with its constitutional obligations.

The plaintiff further seeks an order directing the relevant State institutions to formulate, adequately fund and implement a mandatory and enforceable region-wide framework for the effective teaching, learning, staffing, training of teachers, provision of instructional materials, supervision and assessment of Ga and Dangme in basic schools throughout the Greater Accra Region.

International Human Rights Framework

The plaintiff invokes Article 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the right of children belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or indigenous communities to enjoy their culture and use their own language in community with others.

He further relies on provisions of the African Charter for Cultural Renaissance and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples concerning the development and use of African and indigenous languages in education. The plaintiff argues that these international standards reinforce the constitutional protections for language and culture and support an interpretation of the State’s obligations that gives practical effect to linguistic and cultural rights.

READ/DOWNLOAD FULL WRIT BELOW: