The students want the court to make an order directing the 6 schools to allow them and other Muslim female students, who are obliged to wear a veil or hijab over their heads in the expression of their Islamic belief and school actions, to wear as any school rules that stop them from doing this is a clear violation of their fundamental human rights as enshrined in 1997 Constitution.
The applicants want any policy, rule and regulations of respondents that deny students the right to veil to be declared void by the court. They also want the court to make an order directing the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education to take up all necessary measures including passing of laws, rules and regulations to ensure that schools allow female students to wear veils.
They also want a court order directing the Attorney General and Minister of Justice to take up all necessary measures including laws, rules and regulations to ensure that schools within the country's tertiary institutions allow female students to wear veils.
When the case was called, Lawyer Borry Touray together with Badjie announced their appearance for the plaintiff, while Lawyer Binga announced his appearance for the 1st, 7th, and 8th respondents and Senghore announced his appearance for the 6th respondent.
Meanwhile, A. Mendy also announced his appearance for the 4th accused person and Kennedy announced his appearance for the 3rd respondent and R. Mendy announced his appearance for the 2nd and 5th respondents.
Borry Touray, who is representing the plaintiff, informed the court that he has filed a motion for the amendment of the originating summons.
However, Lawyer R. Mendy, who is the lawyer for the 2nd and 5th respondents, told the court that she was just served with the motion filed by the plaintiff Friday after the court had already closed.
Notwithstanding, A. Mendy for the 4th respondent informed the court that he had already filed an affidavit of opposition to the amendment of the originating summon filed by the plaintiffs’ lawyer.
The presiding Judge, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, ruled that due to the late filing of the application made by the plaintiffs’ lawyer, and given the fact that the respondents lawyers are still within the time limit of 48 hours, the case will be adjourned with a view to enabling them reply.
The case was then adjourned to 1, 2, 8, 9, 22 and 23rd of November 2023.
Read Other Articles In Headlines
Mining companies risk losing licenses amid “massive environmental destruction’
Dec 13, 2022, 10:08 AM
