255/02 Garreth Anver Prince / South Africa
Summary of Facts
1. The complaint is filed by Mr Garreth Anver Prince, a South African citizen of 32 years of age, against the
Republic of South Africa.
2. The Complainant alleges that despite his completion of the academic requirements for admission as an
attorney in terms of the Attorney's Act 53 of 1979, and despite his willingness to register for a contract of
community service for a period of one year, which is a requirement under the said Act, the Law Society of
the Cape of Good Hope (the Law Society) declined to register his contract of community service.
3. The Complainant alleges that the Law Society's refusal to register him was based on his disclosure,
made in his application with the Law Society, that he had two previous convictions for possession of
cannabis under section 4(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act and his expressed intention to continue
using cannabis. The Complainant stated that the use of cannabis was inspired and required by his
Rastafari religion. The Law Society held that such a person was not a fit and proper person to be admitted
as an attorney.
4. The Complainant alleges that reasoning and meditation are essential elements of the religion. The use of
cannabis is central to these essential practices of the religion that serve as a form of communion. He
alleges that the use of cannabis was believed to open one's mind and helped Rastafari gain access to the
inspiration provided by Jah Rastafari, the Living God. He further alleges that the use of cannabis in
Rastafari religion was the most sacred act surrounded by very strict discipline and elaborate protocol. The
use of the herb, as it is commonly known, is to create unity and assist in establishing the eternal
relationship with the Creator.
Complaint
5. The Complainant alleges violations of Articles 5, 8, 15 and 17(2) of the African Charter on Human and
Peoples' Rights.
6. The Complainant prays that he be entitled to an exemption for the sacramental use of cannabis
reasonably accommodating him to manifest his beliefs in accordance with his Rastafari religion.
7. The undated complaint was received at the Secretariat on 12th August 2002.
8. On 16th August 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainant acknowledging receipt of the complaint,
and informing him that his complaint has been registered and scheduled for consideration at the
Commission's 32nd Ordinary Session.
9. At its 32nd Ordinary Session held from 17th to 23rd October 2002 in Banjul, The Gambia, the African
Commission considered the complaint and decided to be seized thereof.
10. On 4th November 2002, the Secretariat wrote to the complainant and Respondent State to inform them
of this decision and requested them to forward their submissions on admissibility before the 33rd Ordinary
Session of the Commission.
11. On 19th December 2002, the Secretariat received the Complainant's written submissions on
admissibility of the communication, which was forwarded to the Respondent State on 17th February 2003.
In the same letter, the Secretariat reminded the Respondent State to forward its written submissions on the
admissibility of the communication before the 33rd Ordinary Session.
12. By a Note Verbale of 31st March 2003, which was not received in a legible print out form, the
Respondent State confirmed receipt of the Commission's correspondences and requested the Commission
to extend the deadline for the submission of its response on the admissibility of the complaint for another
three months.
13. On 8th April 2003, the Secretariat wrote to the Respondent State confirming receipt of their
correspondence and requesting them to resend the said request to it as the same did not reach the
Secretariat in a legible print out form.
14. By a fax of 5th May 2003, the Respondent State confirmed its request for more time to enable it prepare
and forward its written submissions on admissibility of the communication to the Commission.
15. At its 33rd Ordinary Session held in Niamey, Niger from 15th to 29th May 2003, the African Commission
examined the communication and postponed its decision on admissibility to its 34th Ordinary Session
granting the Respondent State more time as per its request.
1