The High Court has dismissed a petition by the Rastafari Society of Kenya seeking to decriminalize the use and possession of cannabis
In a judgment delivered by Justice Bahati Mwamuye, the court held that although Rastafari is a religion entitled to constitutional protection, the petitioners failed to prove that the prohibition against cannabis use violated their constitutional rights.
The petitioners argued that cannabis, which they described as the “holy herb,” is a sacred sacrament central to the Rastafari faith and sought an exemption allowing its use during private worship and within designated places of worship.
They maintained that criminalising the plant infringed on their constitutional rights to freedom of religion, privacy, dignity, equality and freedom from discrimination, as well as freedom of association.
However, Justice Mwamuye found that the petition was premature because the petitioners had not exhausted the legal mechanisms available under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act before moving to court.
The judge noted that the law provides a licensing framework for the controlled use of narcotic substances and held that the petitioners ought to have first sought an exemption through the existing statutory process.
“The Petitioners have not exhausted the available legal and administrative mechanisms under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Control Act,” Justice Mwamuye ruled.
“I therefore find and hold that the Petition is premature and the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it at this stage.”
Even so, the court made a significant finding by affirming that Rastafari qualifies as a religion under the Constitution.
“It is no longer contestable that Rastafarian is a religion for purposes of constitutional protection,” the judge said, relying on previous Kenyan and comparative judicial decisions.
Despite recognising the faith, the court found that the petitioners had failed to establish that cannabis use is an essential requirement of Rastafari worship.
Justice Mwamuye observed that during cross-examination, some of the petitioners’ own witnesses admitted that Rastafarians could pray without cannabis and that some followers of the religion do not use it at all.
The court held that those admissions weakened the argument that the law forced adherents to choose between obeying the law and practising their faith.
The judge further ruled that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act is a law of general application enacted to protect public health and safety and does not specifically target Rastafarians or any religion.
He also rejected claims that the law violates the constitutional rights to privacy and equality, holding that regulation of narcotic drugs serves a legitimate public interest and that exemptions currently available for medical and scientific purposes are rationally connected to government objectives.
In opposing the petition, the Attorney General argued that granting a religious exemption would create enforcement challenges, open loopholes for abuse and undermine Kenya’s obligations under international drug control treaties.
National Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse (NACADA) also urged the court to dismiss the case, citing scientific evidence linking cannabis use to dependency, cognitive impairment and mental health disorders. The agency relied on its 2022 national survey, which identified cannabis as the country’s most widely used illicit drug.
The court concluded that even if the petitioners’ constitutional rights had been limited, the limitation was reasonable and justifiable under Article 24 of the Constitution because it serves the legitimate purpose of protecting public health, safety and welfare.
The petition had been filed by the Rastafari Society of Kenya, its spokesperson Mwendwa Wambua, popularly known as Ras Prophet, and Munayi Opondo Isaac
The Attorney General and the Kenya Law Reform Commission were named as the respondents. NACADAparticipated in the case as an interested party.
The petition was consequently dismissed and each party was told to bear its own costs.
Leave a comment