NAIROBI, Kenya, Jul 15 – The High Court has rejected a constitutional challenge by Kenya’s Rastafari community seeking an exemption from cannabis laws for religious worship, ruling that the petitioners failed to prove the drug is an essential tenet of their faith.
The court also said the petitioners had bypassed available legal mechanisms.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice Bahati Mwamuye dismissed the petition filed by the Rastafari Society of Kenya, its spokesperson Mwendwa Wambua alias Ras Prophet and another petitioner, saying the evidence presented did not establish that cannabis use was indispensable to the practice of the Rastafari religion.
“The Petitioners’ own witnesses admitted that the use of cannabis is not mandatory and that some Rastafari do not use it at all. This suggests that cannabis use is a preferred mode of worship, not a requirement of the faith,” Justice Mwamuye ruled.
The petition sought declarations that provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act criminalizing the possession, cultivation and use of cannabis were unconstitutional to the extent that they prohibited its sacramental use by Rastafarians during private worship and at designated places of worship.
The petitioners argued that the restrictions violated their rights to freedom of religion, privacy, dignity, equality and freedom of association.
However, the judge found that the petition was premature because the applicants had failed to exhaust the licensing and exemption mechanisms provided under the law before seeking constitutional relief.
“I therefore find and hold that the Petition is premature and the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it at this stage,” he ruled.
Justice Mwamuye further held that the narcotics law is one of general application aimed at protecting public health and safety, and is not directed at any particular religion.
“The Act is a law of general application enacted to protect public health and safety. The fact that it incidentally affects the Petitioners’ religious practices does not render it unconstitutional per se,” the judgment states.
The court also found that any limitation on the petitioners’ constitutional rights was justified under Article 24 of the Constitution, citing the State’s obligation to protect public health and evidence presented by the National Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse (NACADA) on the risks associated with cannabis use.
Justice Mwamuye said the petitioners had failed to present a practical and enforceable framework that would allow a religious exemption without creating loopholes for abuse or undermining drug control efforts.
Despite dismissing the case, the judge devoted part of the judgment to reflecting on changing public attitudes toward cannabis, observing that its use had become increasingly commonplace in Kenya and deserved broader public debate beyond the courtroom.
“We ought to have a full and frank conversation on cannabis and which direction we should take. The status quo appears untenable,” he observed.
He, however, stressed that such a discussion should not be interpreted as an endorsement of cannabis legalization, but rather as an opportunity for society to re-examine whether existing approaches remain effective.
The court ultimately dismissed the amended petition in its entirety and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
