## Facts

- Garreth Anver Prince, a South African citizen and Rastafari, completed academic requirements for admission as an attorney and sought registration of a required community-service contract.
- The Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope declined to register the contract, effectively preventing his admission to practice, citing:
  - two prior convictions for cannabis possession; and
  - his stated intention to continue using cannabis for religious purposes.
- Prince asserted cannabis use is central to Rastafari “reasoning and meditation,” treated as a sacramental act governed by discipline and protocol.
- Prince litigated domestically through South Africa’s Constitutional Court, which rejected a claimed constitutional entitlement to a religious exemption for cannabis use.
- After exhausting domestic remedies, Prince filed a communication alleging violations of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter), invoking Articles 5, 8, 15, and 17(2).

## Issues

1. Whether the state’s failure to accommodate Prince’s sacramental cannabis use, and the resulting barrier to admission as an attorney, violated Article 8 (freedom of conscience and religion).
2. Whether the same facts violated Article 5 (dignity and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment), Article 15 (right to work), or Article 17(2) (right to education and participation in cultural life).
3. Whether any interference with Charter rights was justified by public health, public order, and the state’s drug-control obligations.

## Decision

- The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights declared the communication admissible but found no violation of the African Charter on the merits.
- The Commission accepted Rastafari as a religion and treated Prince’s cannabis use as religiously motivated, but held Charter rights are subject to limitation for legitimate public interests.
- The Commission relied heavily on public health and public order rationales and the state’s obligations under international drug-control regimes to maintain general prohibitions on cannabis.
- The Commission concluded the cannabis prohibition was generally applicable and non-targeted, and the professional consequence flowed from Prince’s declared intent to continue illegal conduct, not from religious discrimination.
- The Commission rejected the Article 5, 15, and 17(2) claims, finding the complained-of treatment did not meet Article 5 thresholds and that Articles 15 and 17(2) did not require access to a particular profession or cultural practice involving a prohibited substance.

## Legal Principles

- Freedom of religion under Article 8 protects religious belief and its manifestation, but it is not absolute and may be limited to protect public health, public order, and the rights of others.
- Generally applicable criminal laws may permissibly restrict religiously motivated conduct when the restriction pursues legitimate aims and is not targeted at a religion as such.
- A state’s drug-control measures, including those tied to international drug-control obligations, can constitute a strong justification for limiting religious practice involving controlled substances.
- Alleged discrimination is less likely to be found where the challenged measure applies to all persons on its face and adverse effects arise from a claimant’s intention to violate generally applicable law.
- The right to work does not guarantee entry into a specific regulated profession irrespective of compliance with general legal requirements; related professional consequences may be treated as derivative of lawful regulation.

## Conclusion

The African Commission held that South Africa’s refusal to provide a religious exemption for Rastafari sacramental cannabis use, and the resulting impediment to Prince’s admission as an attorney, did not violate Articles 5, 8, 15, or 17(2) of the African Charter because the restriction reflected generally applicable drug laws justified by public health, public order, and international drug-control commitments.


Prince v. South Africa, Comm. No. 255/2002, (Afr. Comm’n H.P.R. 2004)