the statement not in his official capacity, probably, coupled with official action by the Respondent to punish the Minister or removing him from office. It must be noted that the performance of functions of the Ministers of State are within the legal architecture of the state and for that matter has the full legal backing of the state. The remedies provided by the Respondent in its efforts to mitigate the effect of the breach on the victims by establishing different schools for the victims and distancing itself from the acts of the Minister could not be exonerative of its liability for the wrongful act of its agent. In the light of the foregoing analysis of the facts and the legal considerations pertaining to the case, the Court finds that, contrary to the submissions of the Respondent, the Minister’s statement is attributable and imputable to the Respondent and same amounted to an unlawful ban on pregnant adolescent girls from attending school and the Court so holds. 3. WHETHER FROM THE FACTS AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT THERE EXISTS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PREGNANT SCHOOL GIRLS IN SIERRA LEONE. Another allegation by the Applicant against the Respondent is discrimination against pregnant girls in education. The Applicant cited discrimination arising from the violation of Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation Convention against Discrimination in Education; Articles 2, 3, 4 and 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; Articles 2, 3, 5(a) and 10 of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women; Articles 2(2), 3 and 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and Articles 2, 26 and 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 20