Use of intoxicant part of ritual, court told

By M. S. Prabhakara

CAPE TOWN, MAY 23. The issue of decriminalising the use by South African adults of the weed, cannabis sativa, more commonly known as dagga (ganja in India), is once again in the fore. The weed is grown widely in the region (the stuff from Lesotho is reputedly of the highest quality). Millions of South Africans use it in one form or another on a regular basis, irrespective of existing laws.

The Constitutional Court returned to the issue last week when it considered for the second time the appeal by Mr. Gareth Anver Prince, an adult Rastafarian and qualified advocate, seeking exemption from laws which prohibit the possession and use of dagga.

The issue is being addressed even as some icons of South African cricket admitted to smoking dagga in Antigua in West Indies, in celebration of the team's triumph over West Indies in the three test series. The five members of the team, Mr. Paul Adams, Mr. Herschelle Gibbs, Mr. Justin Kemp, Mr. Andre Nel and Mr. Roger Telemachus, and the team physiotherapist, Mr. Craig Smith, have received `severe reprimands' and have been fined rands 10,000 each.

However, the official indignation over the behaviour of the cricketers is not reflected at the popular level which is rather more tolerant. Even the President, Mr. Thabo Mbeki, has only described the incident as `unfortunate' which had to be seen as part of `our unhappy history'.

The long legal battle began when the Cape Law Society refused to admit Mr. Prince to the bar as an attorney on the ground that he had been convicted for possession of dagga, and that he had refused to stop using the weed. Mr. Prince's stand was that his religion, Rastafarianism, required him to use it as part of ritual. Rastafarians, also known as Rastas, believe that they have unique spiritual links to Ethiopia and its late emperor, Haile Selassie, also known as Ras Tafari; and that this belief, later mediated via Jamaica where the sect originally took its birth, required them to use dagga as part of their ritual.

Mr. Prince challenged the bar in the Cape High Court on the ground that this violated his constitutional right to freedom of religion, his belief and practice as a Rastafarian. The High Court while agreeing that the ban infringed on his religious freedom, said it was nevertheless justified in the interest of the larger social good. The State had an interest in strict regulation and control of its use. It had also to fulfill its international treaty obligations.

The subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the ruling of the Cape High Court was also dismissed on much the same grounds.

Thus, the appeal to the Constitutional Court which first heard the arguments from both sides in November. The evidence and arguments presented by both sides were heard by all the 11 judges and were found insufficient to assist the Court to arrive at a judgment; and the parties were ordered to gather more information and return to the Court. After hearing renewed arguments last week, the Court reserved its judgment.

While the ruling by the Constitutional Court will affect the professional aspirations and religious feelings of the appellant and also of the larger Rastafarian community, it is unlikely to affect the reality on the ground.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : International
Previous : U.N. meet agrees on shared responsibility
Next     : A gender divide, literally