Kenyan High Court Dismisses Rastafarian Petition to Legalize Cannabis

High Court Ruling on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

In a landmark judgment delivered on July 15, 2026, a three-judge bench of the High Court upheld the constitutionality of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act. The ruling effectively shuts down, for now, the legal efforts of the Rastafari community, which had argued that the blanket prohibition of cannabis infringed upon their fundamental rights to freedom of religion and belief guaranteed under the Constitution. The petition, which included arguments from cannabis advocates led by researcher Gwada Ogot, challenged the Act on the grounds that the prohibition limits scientific research and prevents citizens from benefiting from the plant’s medical and commercial value.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye determined that the petitioners failed to provide a sufficient constitutional or legal foundation to justify a religious exemption. The court emphasized that any such exemption would require a robust legal framework that the Rastafarian community could not establish in this petition. The court further held that the state’s current restrictions on the cultivation, possession, and use of cannabis are justified by the need to protect public health and safety. The judges ruled that Parliament acted within its constitutional mandate when it enacted legislation prohibiting cannabis and that the restrictions are justified in the interest of safeguarding society.

Legal Team Plans Appeal to the Court of Appeal

Despite the dismissal, the legal team representing the Rastafari community has signaled an immediate intent to challenge the decision. Lawyer Danstan Omari stated that while they respect the judge’s authority, they fundamentally disagree with the ruling and intend to escalate the matter to the Court of Appeal.

“We don’t agree with the decision of the learned judge, but we respect the decision that the judge has given,” Danstan Omari said. “We’ll go by word by word, paragraph by paragraph, page by page until the last page. Then we will get instructions from our clients, but definitely this matter is adding to the Court of Appeal.”

Omari indicated that his team had not yet reviewed the court’s reasoning in full at the time of his remarks, noting that the judgment would be examined in detail before formal instructions were taken from their clients. Omari intends to seek a seven-judge bench for the appeal, stating, “In our instructions, we shall be seeking that the President of the Court of Appeal… panels this matter with seven judges of the Court of Appeal so that they can hear this matter exhaustively.”

For more on this story, see Kenya High Court Rejects Cannabis Legalization for Rastafarian Use.

He argued that the case raises significant constitutional questions and indicated that the legal battle could ultimately reach the country’s highest court. “The jurisprudence in this country is that this matter raises serious constitutional issues, and we are determined to get the final decision from the Supreme Court,” Omari said. He also referenced international precedents, noting that the South African Court of Justice and other constitutional courts have allowed similar exemptions. “Kenya cannot be a barrier country. Kenya cannot be the only country that is harassing the Rastafarian people,” Omari stated.

Call for a National Conversation on Cannabis Reform

While the court maintained the current criminalization of cannabis, the judiciary acknowledged that the global and local discourse surrounding the plant has shifted. In the ruling, Justice Mwamuye observed that the question of cannabis regulation is a broader societal issue that extends beyond the specific religious interests of the Rastafarian community.

“We ought to have frank conversations on cannabis and which directions we should take,” Justice Mwamuye said. “This is not a question for the Rastafarian community only. It is a national question that cuts across the entire spectrum of our society.”

The court explicitly stated that any future changes to the law should occur through the legislative process rather than judicial intervention. The bench encouraged policymakers, health experts, researchers, civil society organizations, and the public to engage in an informed national dialogue, noting that several countries have reviewed their cannabis policies in light of emerging scientific research, medical applications, and the potential economic benefits associated with industrial hemp production. The court emphasized that such discussions should carefully balance these interests.

For now, the status of cannabis in Kenya remains unchanged: the cultivation, possession, and use of the drug remain valid and enforceable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act. The legal team’s stated determination to reach the Supreme Court suggests that this conflict between religious freedom and public health legislation will continue to be litigated.

Find more reporting in our Health section.