The Applicant claims that the statement by the Minister cemented an informal, sporadic practice into government policy effectively formalising the policy and exacerbating the position of pregnant girls. The Applicant states that the statement brought about stigmatisation of pregnant girls in school leading to most of them dropping out of school which actions the Applicant describes as discriminatory against the pregnant school girls. The Respondent in its Defence to the Applicant’s averments admitted the fact that the statement was actually made by the Minister of Education but added that it was immediately reversed by the Government. It also admitted that separate schools were established for pregnant girls to cater for their welfare. It did not deny in its defence, the issue of reduced subjects for pregnant girls to only four (4) and the fact that the schools only operate three (3) times a week unlike the regular schools. It also did not provide sufficient information or facts to disprove the Applicant's claim that the established schools were far short of standards compared to the mainstream schools. From the facts as provided above, can the actions of the Respondent be said to be discriminatory against pregnant girls in education in contravention of the Articles cited by the Applicant to justify the reliefs sought? The Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition defines discrimination as: 1. The effect of a law or established practice that confers privileges on a certain class or that denies privileges to a certain class because of race, age, sex, nationality, religion or handicap. 2. Differential treatment; especially a failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between those favoured and those not favoured 2