A student who sued a school that expelled her for allegedly engaging in lesbianism has lost her bid to have the institution readmit and compensate her for rights violations.
The Form 4 student, WN, through her father FN, alongside the Legal Resources Foundation sued the school for throwing her out in late 2021 when she was preparing for national exams for the alleged sexual misconduct.
The National Gays and Lesbians Human Rights Commission joined the suit as an interested party.
WN asked the court for compensation, an order that her rights were violated and a restraining order against the school’s administration from interfering with her studies.
She also alleged that she had not been given adequate hearing to put her case and defend herself against any allegations.
But as the school filed its defense, it became apparent that the matter of sexual orientation was never at play when WN was expelled.
It emerged that WN had several indiscipline cases at the school warranting the action.
In fact, the school said, and it was not controverted in the course of the trial, that the student had drawn graffiti on the wall of a toilet building that she would burn down the school.
This caused apprehension, and considering her numerous indiscipline cases, the administration decided to expel her in the best interest of other learners.
“From the evidence adduced before this court, the reasons for expelling the minor were first communicated to the parent through a letter dated December 12, 2021 where the parent offered to respond through an apology letter," the court ruled.
A disciplinary meeting was convened to which the petitioners were invited and they attended.
"The decision of the committee was thereafter communicated to the Ministry of Education and the minor was only allowed into the school during the exam period as a day scholar,” court papers say.
The judgement given on September 21, 2023 found the school to have conducted due diligence in sufficiently communicating with the minor’s parent and affording them a hearing.
“From the foregoing, it is clear that the minor was given a chance to present her case, and the reasons for the expulsion were addressed in the letter. This court will therefore not interfere with the administrative decision of the school as it was bound to protect other students, and in arriving at its decision to expel the minor followed the laid down school rules and regulations.”
The court also found that the threat of burning down the school by the minor was credible given her past record, and the institution took the appropriate intervention to preempt any unrest that may have ensued.
The court said that in the wider context, school unrest through burning down by students was rampant at the time WN was expelled and hence removing her was the right way to stop the trend.
“I find that the school acted appropriately when serious threats of burning the school arose. This court also takes note that the threat was issued at a period when most schools had been burnt," the court ruled.
“In the circumstances, I find no malice in the actions taken by the school to address the possible unrest. All students are expected to obey the school rules and regulations. Failure to abide by such attracts consequences to be meted by the school.”
It went on: “The authority of schools and their administration in imposing sanctions against defying students is consistent with their duties and is meant to maintain discipline and keep students in check. This court finds that the petitioner has failed to prove the contravention of the constitutional rights.”
