General News

The Supreme Court’s reasoning for denying a cannabis cultivation permit

The Supreme Court ruled that because Parliament did not follow proper procedures when passing the statute authorizing the cultivation of wee, it should be repealed.

The court ruled that, in accordance with Articles 106(5) and (6) of the 1992 Constitution, there was no debate in Parliament before it was passed into law.

The supreme court once more expressed the considered judgment that the explanatory memorandum attached to the bill submitted to Parliament did not fully explain the policy shift, the flaws in the current law, and the need to adopt a law to licence cannabis growing.

According to the court, such an omission violated Article 106 (2) of the 1992 Constitution.

The court determined that Section 43 of the Narcotic Control Commission Act 2020 (Act 1019) was unconstitutional in light of the aforementioned violations.

“Section 43 of Act 1019 was introduced in a manner that is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Thus, Section 43 is hereby declared to be unlawful.

Article 106 of the Constitution is being directly violated by the absence of discussion surrounding Section 43 of Act 1019, but it is also being violated in spirit.

“There was glaringly no discussion of such a significant policy move by Parliament. It goes without saying that this behavior and method of legislating violates the Constitution’s requirements for accountability and transparency, the court ruled.

According to Section 43 of Act 1019, the Minister of the Interior may, on the advice of the Narcotics Control Commission, give a license to a company for the industrial and medical cultivation of cannabis with a Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level of no more than 0.3.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Check Also
Close
Back to top button
%d bloggers like this:

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker