The Applicant then went further specifically to express the form in which the Respondent manifests the discrimination in its claim. It averred in paragraph 5.5 of its claim thus; “that the Minister of Education, Science and Technology, Dr. Minkailu Bah proclaimed in media statements that visibly pregnant girls would no longer be able to attend school upon the re-opening of schools as pregnant girls served as negative influence on their peers”. In paragraph 5.6 of its claim it further averred that; “indeed, victims of the ban state that they were asked to stop attending school when their pregnancies became visible in line with the government policy. Some further stated that they were asked to stop attending school so as not to mingle with other students and influence them”. \t continued again in paragraph 5.7 to state as follows: “Attempts were made to create alternative schools for some girls. However the schools established in line with this system were not as accessible as mainstream “regular” schools and additionally, did not offer the same quality of education as that taught at mainstream schools. The alternative schools only operated three days a week and only made provision for the study of four core subjects- Maths, English language, Integrated Science and Social Studies; essentially offering “limited” education. Furthermore, the schools reportedly integrated all learners of different ages and academic progress into one classroom. Limited information was provided to communities on the schools established in line with the system and the financial support promised to be provided so as to facilitate attendance of pregnant learners was reportedly not provided”. aa