Barbados High Court dismisses Rastafari cannabis constitutional challenge

High Court in Barbados dismisses Rastafari cannabis constitutional challenge

The High Court has dismissed a constitutional challenge to Barbados’ Sacramental Cannabis Act, ruling that restrictions governing the use of cannabis by Rastafarians do not unlawfully infringe on religious freedom.

7 hours ago

Barbados High Court dismisses Rastafari cannabis constitutional challenge

BRIDGETOWN, Barbados (CMC) — Barbados High Court has dismissed a constitutional challenge to the countrys’ Sacramental Cannabis Act, ruling that restrictions governing the use of cannabis by Rastafarians do not unlawfully infringe on religious freedom. Delivering the decision on Friday in the No. 8 Supreme Court, Justice Michelle Weekes rejected claims brought by Paul ‘Ras Simba’ Rock through attorney Lalu Hanuman, who had argued that the legislation prevented him from using cannabis during religious ceremonies conducted at his home. Rock also contended that the 2019 law failed to make provision for Rastafari women who, under certain religious practices, are not permitted in Nyabinghi tabernacles during menstruation and are instead expected to worship at home. In his claim, Rock alleged breaches of several constitutional rights, including freedom of conscience, expression, assembly and association, freedom of religion, and protection against discrimination on the basis of creed under the constitution and international human rights law. However, in her ruling, Justice Weekes said: “The claimant’s claims regarding the constitutionality of the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, Chapter 131 and the Sacramental Cannabis Act are dismissed. It follows that the declarations sought in respect of the said act are denied. I will hear the parties at a later date in relation to the order of any costs.” She added that written reasons for the decision would be provided on or before July 29. Rock described the ruling as deeply disappointing, particularly as it was handed down without immediate reasons. “I can’t help but feeling that after five years and various delays and the setbacks, just to come and say it’s denied with no reason and to come back for the reason later, it seems like more than a slap in the face. It leaves a distasteful taste in my mouth, so to speak. And not because of the loss; sometimes it’s not what is done, but how it is done,” he told reporters outside the court. Rock argued that the restrictions effectively limited the full exercise of his religious rights. “So because Rastafari cannot be policed, we cannot be given our full constitutional rights, only partial. Partial constitutional rights, as far as I’m concerned, is as good as denying it fully,” he said. “How can you be expected to practise your faith partially, or with limits?” He confirmed that he intends to appeal the decision within the 28-day deadline and is seeking assistance from the Legal Aid Department. Reacting to the outcome of the case, Hanuman told the media: “Anything that challenges the status quo is always subject to a certain element of unpredictability, and in fact, I’m not surprised really.”

9 hours ago