The lecturer is also raising issues on the position of science that sees the Earth to be a planet in the solar system and that its movement around the Sun is the cause of day and night, years and seasons.
According to Anane, who argues that days, nights, years and seasons were created by God, the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of the Solar System goes contrary to the Bible which posits that God created man.
“The implications of the theories are that the creative work of God as stated in Genesis has been cancelled, denied or nullified,” he stated in his writ.
According to a Daily Graphic report sighted by Ghanaweb, the lecturer, besides falling on the court to uphold his claims, also wants the court to ban the study of the Theory of Evolution and the solar system in the country.
“These theories are taught in schools (Primary, JHS and SHS) and need to be banned or abolished,” Anane averred.
Joined in the suit as respondents are the Director-General of the Ghana Education Service, the President of the Ghana Science Association of Ghana and the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General, in a preliminary objection, has asked the court to dismiss the suit, describing it as without merit and an abuse of the court’s processes.
The AG argues that the suit raises no cause of action as it does not state any constitutional issue for the court to interpret or any constitutional violations by the respondents.
“The motion is incompetent and does not properly invoke the court’s jurisdiction under Article 2(1) and (2) of the Constitution of Ghana, 1992 and does not also comply with Rules 45 and 46 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 C.I.16,” the A-G contended.
According to the Daily Graphic, the case was initially filed at a Kumasi High Court but was struck out by the court on grounds of jurisdictional limits.
Justice Patricia Quansah, the presiding judge of the aforementioned Kumasi High Court, declared: “I will have to strike out this matter not so much as the plaintiff’s claims not disclosing any reasonable cause of action, but because properly so-called this court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.”
The plaintiff was then advised by the High Court to take the matter to the Supreme Court.