Barbados High Court Dismisses 5-Year Constitutional Challenge to Cannabis Law

For legal practitioners and regulatory observers, the Barbados High Court’s summary dismissal of a constitutional challenge to the Sacramental Cannabis Act—without immediate reasons—raises critical questions about judicial transparency and the protection of minority religious rights. The ruling, delivered July 4, 2026, by Justice Michelle Weekes, underscores the ongoing tension between legislative drug frameworks and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms across the Caribbean. As the claimant Paul ‘Ras Simba’ Rock vows to appeal, the case illuminates the high hurdles that religious liberty claims face when pitted against public health and controlled-substance statutes.

The Barbados High Court has dismissed a constitutional challenge to the country’s Sacramental Cannabis Act, a pivotal ruling that reinforces the state’s authority to regulate cannabis even in the face of religious freedom claims. Delivered on July 4, 2026, by Justice Michelle Weekes in the No. 8 Supreme Court, the decision abruptly ends – at least for now – a five-year legal battle brought by Rastafari adherent Paul ‘Ras Simba’ Rock. Rock, represented by attorney Lalu Hanuman, had argued that the 2019 Act and its predecessor, the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, unlawfully restricted his ability to use cannabis during religious ceremonies at home, infringing on his rights to conscience, expression, assembly, association, religion, and protection against discrimination.

“

The Barbados High Court has dismissed a constitutional challenge to the country’s Sacramental Cannabis Act, a pivotal ruling that reinforces the state’s authority to regulate cannabis even in the face of religious freedom claims.

The core dispute centered on the boundaries between public health legislation and constitutionally protected freedoms. The Sacramental Cannabis Act was enacted to permit limited use of cannabis for religious rituals by registered Rastafari groups, but Rock contended that the law was too narrow. It failed, he argued, to accommodate worship conducted in private homes rather than designated tabernacles, and it made no provision for Rastafari women who, under certain menstrual purity practices, are required to worship at home. The claim thus raised both specific operational grievances and broader questions about whether a secular legislature can dictate the precise settings and modalities of religious observance.

Justice Weekes rejected all claims without providing immediate reasons, stating that written reasons would be furnished on or before July 29, 2026. This procedural choice drew sharp criticism from Rock, who called it ‘more than a slap in the face’ and lamented the lack of transparency after years of litigation. The delay in reasoned judgment injects uncertainty into the legal landscape: while the Act stands, the absence of a detailed judicial analysis means that the precise legal grounds for dismissal remain unknown for several more weeks. This may complicate any appeal and leaves other potential litigants guessing about the court’s interpretation of religious freedom within the framework of drug control.