GES Urged to Review Student Sexual Misconduct Rule Over Alleged Discrimination Against Boys

A teacher at J. G. Knol Technical Institute, Seth Afum A. Dankwah, has petitioned the Ghana Education Service (GES) Code of Conduct Review Committee to reconsider Section 2.16 of the Code of Conduct for Students in Pre-Tertiary Levels, arguing that the provision creates an unfair distinction between male and female students in cases involving sexual relations and pregnancy.

Mr Dankwah submitted a memorandum dated August 27, 2026, addressed to the Chairman of the GES Code of Conduct Review Committee. His proposal comes after the National Conference on Stemming Indiscipline in Senior High Schools, held at the Eusbett Hotel in Sunyani from July 29 to 30, 2026.

The conference, held under the theme “Stemming the Growing Indiscipline in Schools in an Emerging New World,” was convened by the Ministry of Education and opened by Education Minister Haruna Iddrisu and Director-General of the Ghana Education Service, Prof. Ernest Kofi Davis.

According to Mr Dankwah, the conference resulted in a decision to develop new safeguarding policies and review existing Codes of Conduct, following which the GES constituted a committee to undertake the review.

Bolgatanga Girls’ SHS case

In his memorandum, Mr Dankwah referred to the recent controversy involving Bolgatanga Girls’ Senior High School, where parents were reportedly informed that their 14-year-old ward had been found guilty of sexual misconduct under Section 2.16 of the GES Code of Conduct and faced dismissal.

He noted that the GES subsequently clarified that the case involved allegations of abuse by two members of staff who worked as watchmen at the school.

However, Mr Dankwah said he was using the Bolgatanga case as the basis for a hypothetical situation that, in his view, exposes a problem with the current wording of Section 2.16.

He posed the question: “What if the sexual interaction at Bolga Girls had been between two students and the girl became pregnant?”

Concern over Section 2.16

Section 2.16 of the 2024 GES Code of Conduct states that “It shall be a misconduct for any student to engage in sexual relations,” with dismissal prescribed as the sanction.

Mr Dankwah, however, pointed out that the same section contains a provision dealing with pregnant students.

According to his memorandum, Section 2.16(e) states that the GES guideline on the prevention of pregnancy among school girls and facilitation of re-entry after childbirth should be applied to girls who become pregnant.

He also referred to the GES Guidelines for Prevention of Pregnancy among School Girls and Facilitation of Re-entry into School after Childbirth, originally issued in 2018 and revised in 2020.

The guideline, he said, is designed to prevent pregnant girls from being expelled from school and provides for maternity leave and subsequent re-entry into education.

The discrimination argument

Mr Dankwah argues that the interaction between the dismissal provision and the pregnancy re-entry policy creates what he describes as a discriminatory outcome for boys.

He explained that where two students engage in sexual relations but no pregnancy occurs, Section 2.16 would result in both students facing dismissal.

However, if the same sexual act results in pregnancy, the girl can benefit from the pregnancy and re-entry policy, while the boy could remain subject to dismissal under Section 2.16.

In his words, the practical outcome becomes:

“Sex without pregnancy = dismissal for both. Sex with pregnancy = dismissal for the boy alone, re-entry for the girl.”

He believes this situation requires the GES to reconsider the provision to ensure that disciplinary measures do not unfairly disadvantage male students.

Constitutional and legal concerns

Mr Dankwah further cited Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution, which provides for equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on specified grounds.

He also referred to Section 101 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), arguing that sexual intercourse with a child under 16 constitutes defilement regardless of consent.

He said cases involving children should therefore be handled with appropriate child-protection considerations rather than simply treating one child as an offender subject to school dismissal.

The memorandum also cited the Children’s Act, 1998 (Act 560), the Juvenile Justice Act, 2003 (Act 653), and the Pre-Tertiary Education Act, 2020 (Act 1049) as part of the legal framework relevant to the issue.

Proposed changes

Mr Dankwah has proposed that Section 2.16 be amended to provide clearer and more balanced procedures for cases involving sexual relations between students.

Among his recommendations is that where sexual relations occur between two students, both students should receive counselling, their parents should be invited, and the students should be converted to day status rather than automatically dismissed.

Where pregnancy occurs, he proposes that the existing GES re-entry guidelines should continue to apply to the girl after delivery, while the boy should remain under guidance in day status or be transferred where necessary.

He said such an approach would protect the educational interests of both students while still allowing schools to respond firmly to sexual misconduct.

Legal protection for school authorities

The teacher is also calling for an indemnity provision to be introduced into the Code to protect heads of schools and disciplinary committee members who act in good faith while implementing the rules.

He said the protection would address concerns reportedly raised by the Conference of Heads of Assisted Secondary Schools (CHASS), particularly where school authorities have to make difficult disciplinary decisions that could later attract legal challenges.

Mr Dankwah has further proposed that every District Education Directorate be assigned a legal officer or lawyer to advise schools on cases involving Section 2.16.

He argued that such cases can have criminal-law implications and that teachers and school administrators should not be expected to interpret or enforce complex legal provisions without professional legal assistance.

Call for clearer rules

Mr Dankwah commended the GES for establishing the Code of Conduct Review Committee but urged it to use the review exercise to resolve what he considers ambiguities and inconsistencies in Section 2.16.

He argued that the provision should be rewritten in a way that gives school authorities clear guidance while ensuring that disciplinary measures are consistent with Ghana’s child-protection and constitutional principles.

He concluded that clearer rules and legal support for school authorities would help prevent situations in which teachers are left to enforce provisions with significant legal consequences without adequate training.

The memorandum was submitted by Seth Afum A. Dankwah of J. G. Knol Technical Institute, Adukrom-Akuapem in the Eastern Region, for the attention of the Chairman of the GES Code of Conduct Review Committee.