IN FEBRUARY 1995, Justice Gopeesingh and the Court of Appeal handed down a landmark judgement in the matter of Sumayyah Mohammed (minor) vs Moraine et al, wherein a Muslim pupil challenged the refusal of Holy Name Convent, to allow her to vary the school's uniform code to include the wearing of a hijab.
In its judgement, the court ruled that while the school had the right to insist on compliance with school regulations, its policy was inflexible and it had been unreasonable in the exercise of its powers in preventing the child from attending school wearing a hijab.
The court also pointed out that the convent failed to provide evidence that the altered nature of the school uniform would be conducive to indiscipline or would erode the sense of tradition or loyalty to the school, nor would it accentuate distinctions between students from more affluent and less affluent homes.
The court explicitly stated that the school authorities, in the exercise of its powers under the Education Act, had been unreasonable and its actions were therefore unsustainable.
This judgement has since served as a most valuable guide for the development and enforcement of school rules given the fact that Trinidad and Tobago is a secular country, and where the constitution is the supreme law.
School authorities, guided by the Ministry of Education are therefore mindful of the law of the land in establishing guidelines for the operation of schools cognisant, of fundamental rights enjoyed by citizens under the constitution.
These rights have direct bearing on schools when developing and enforcing school rules including the right to:
* Equality before the law and protection of the law,
* Security of the person and the enjoyment of property,
* Respect for private and family life,
* Equality of treatment,
* Freedom of expression,
* A parent to choose a school for the education of their child/ward,
* Freedom of conscience, religious belief and observance, and;
* Such procedural provisions as are necessary for the purpose of giving effect and protection to the aforesaid rights and freedoms.
The Education Act of 1966 also defines the responsibility of the minister of education for ensuring effective execution of the education policy and in particular Section 7, which prohibits discrimination.
All school personnel derive their authority from this act and are well advised to exercise such powers as prescribed and in tandem with their job descriptions.
While the act does not give authority to school officials to deny or suspend any of the aforementioned rights, unfortunately, and owing to our colonial legacies, many school rules currently enforced run afoul of the law, and parents are increasingly challenging them all the way to the court.
Issues surrounding grooming, adherence to uniform codes and possession of property frequently form the basis of legal challenge.
Too often, TTUTA is forced to guide members regarding the enforcement of school rules that are ultra vires.
School officials are well advis
