A legal practitioner and ordained Anglican priest, Rev’d Fr. Nii Omanye Boni-Lamptey, has invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, challenging what he describes as the State’s failure to take sufficient and effective measures to preserve, develop and promote the Ga and Dangme languages through basic education in the Greater Accra Region.
The action, filed against the Ghana Education Service (GES), the Ga Traditional Council and the Attorney-General, raises a question on whether the State’s obligation under Article 39(3) of the 1992 Constitution to foster the development of Ghanaian languages requires practical and sustained measures through the educational system.
The Plaintiff is asking the Supreme Court to interpret and enforce a number of constitutional provisions relating to equality, education, culture, language and the Directive Principles of State Policy.
The Constitutional Duty
At the centre of the case is Article 39(3) of the Constitution, which provides that: “The State shall foster the development of Ghanaian languages and pride in Ghanaian culture.”
The Plaintiff argues that the use of the word “shall” imposes a constitutional command rather than leaving the development of Ghanaian languages entirely to governmental discretion.
According to his case, to “foster” means more than merely recognising or permitting the use of Ghanaian languages. It requires positive measures reasonably capable of ensuring their continued development and transmission from one generation to another.
He therefore contends that the constitutional obligation must have practical implications for education, since schools constitute one of the principal institutions through which language is transmitted between generations.
The Plaintiff relies on Article 39(3) together with, among others, Articles 17, 21(1)(a), 25(1), 26(1), 35(3), 38(1) and 39(1) of the Constitution.
Article 26(1), in particular, guarantees every person the right to enjoy, practise, profess, maintain and promote any culture, language, tradition or religion, subject to the Constitution. Article 25(1) guarantees equal educational opportunities and facilities, while Article 38(1) places an obligation on the State to provide educational facilities at all levels and in all regions of Ghana to the greatest extent feasible.
The Plaintiff argues that these provisions must be read together as an integrated constitutional framework rather than as isolated provisions.
Alleged Failure in the Greater Accra Region
The Plaintiff contends that Ga and Dangme have suffered declining institutional support, particularly due to shortages and inadequate deployment of qualified teachers and learning materials.
He cites calls by traditional leaders since 2021 for stronger Ga and Dangme language education, concerns over trained teachers being posted outside the Region, and initiatives such as the 2024 Ga-Dangme Scholarship Scheme and teacher-training programmes at Accra College of Education.
Despite these efforts, he argues that the State has failed to establish an effective system for retaining and deploying trained teachers where they are most needed.
Government Engagement
The Plaintiff acknowledges Government’s efforts to promote Ghanaian languages, including a January 2026 engagement between the Education Minister and the Ga Traditional Council, which called for Ga and Dangme to be made compulsory in basic schools across the Greater Accra Region.
The Plaintiff, however, argues that governmental recognition and public assurances do not, by themselves, establish constitutional compliance.
His position is that the constitutional question is whether the State has actually established, resourced, implemented, monitored and maintained the institutional conditions necessary to fulfil Article 39(3).
Arabic and Chinese Programmes
An interesting aspect of the case is the Plaintiff’s reliance on the State’s approach to Arabic and Chinese education.
He expressly states that he is not challenging the legitimacy of teaching foreign languages in Ghana.
Rather, he uses the programmes as evidence of the State’s demonstrated institutional capacity to develop curricula, engage specialist institutions, recruit teachers and create implementation mechanisms for language-related educational objectives.
In relation to Chinese, the Plaintiff refers to the development of a Chinese-language curriculum through collaboration involving NaCCA and the Confucius Institute at the University of Cape Coast.
In relation to Arabic, he points to Government’s response to identified shortages of Arabic teachers, including reported plans for the recruitment of additional teachers.
The argument is therefore not that Arabic or Chinese should receive less attention, but that where the State is capable of mobilising institutional and financial resources to address identified language-education needs, it should also be able to demonstrate what reasonable and effective measures it has taken to fulfil the constitutional duty to foster Ghanaian languages.
Not a Claim for Exclusive Mother-Tongue Education
The Plaintiff clarifies that he is not seeking exclusive mother-tongue education or the exclusion of English, Arabic, Chinese or other languages. Rather, he argues that the State must go beyond symbolic recognition of Ghanaian languages by providing the teachers, materials, curriculum support and other institutional measures necessary to fulfil its constitutional duty to develop them.
The Constitutional Question Before the Court
The Plaintiff accepts that educational resources are finite and that the Supreme Court should not assume the functions of the Ministry of Education or the Ghana Education Service.
His case is instead that resource constraints cannot automatically answer a constitutional complaint.
The question, as framed by the Plaintiff, is whether the State has taken reasonable, meaningful, evidence-based and progressively effective measures to fulfil the obligation imposed by Article 39(3), when that provision is read together with the relevant constitutional guarantees.
He accordingly asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the alleged continuing omissions constitute an unconstitutional omission under Article 2(1)(b).
Reliefs Sought
Among the principal reliefs sought is a declaration that the State has a mandatory constitutional duty to foster, protect and allocate reasonable public resources towards the sustained development, teaching and learning of indigenous Ghanaian languages in their respective regions, including Ga and Dangme in the Greater Accra Region.
He further seeks a declaration that the alleged failure by Government, acting through the Ministry of Education and GES, to ensure effective deployment of teachers, instructional materials and implementation of Ga and Dangme education in basic schools amounts to a violation of the Constitution.
The Plaintiff is also asking the Court to direct the relevant State institutions to formulate, adequately fund and implement a region-wide framework covering the teaching, learning, staffing, teacher training, instructional materials, supervision and assessment of Ga and Dangme in basic schools across the Greater Accra Region.
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to grant any other relief it considers appropriate.
