Kenya court upholds cannabis ban, rejects Rastafari religious exemption

Justice Bahati Mwamuye dismissed a petition from the Rastafari Society of Kenya on Wednesday, July 15, 2026, and upheld Kenya’s cannabis ban. The High Court found the petitioners had not provided consistent or sufficient evidence to show that bhang was an integral part of Rastafarian religious practice.

The case reached beyond cannabis policy into a direct test of constitutional rights. The petition sought a religious exemption, not broad legalization, and argued that criminalizing cannabis violated freedom of religion, privacy and equality. Mwamuye rejected that challenge, leaving Kenya’s existing restrictions in place under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act, 1994, which criminalizes possession, trafficking and cultivation of cannabis.

The government lined up firmly against the petition. The Attorney General, the National Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse and other state agencies opposed the exemption, arguing that Kenya’s drug laws are designed to protect public health and satisfy international drug-control obligations. The case had already been moving through the courts for months: on November 18, 2025, the High Court granted the Attorney General additional time to file responses.

Mwamuye’s ruling did not close the political argument. He acknowledged the need for a broader national debate on cannabis policy, a signal that the courtroom alone may not settle the issue. That leaves Parliament, regulators and the public to confront the larger question that sat beneath the petition: whether Kenya’s drug laws can accommodate religious claims without weakening enforcement.

For Rastafari advocates, the ruling is a setback, but not necessarily the end of the fight. Lawyers for the community said they would appeal, setting up the next phase of a dispute that has become a marker for how African courts handle the collision between religious freedom, narcotics control and social conservatism. The legal challenge was narrow; the political debate it opened is much wider.