Barbados: Judge Sets Out Why Rastafari Cannabis Challenge Failed

As of 31 July 2026, the reasoning behind Barbados’ July cannabis judgment is public. Justice Michelle Weekes has set out why she dismissed Paul “Ras Simba” Rock’s constitutional challenge on 4 July: the restrictions do interfere with religious freedom, and that interference is justified.

Rock argued that sections 6, 8, and 11 of the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act discriminate against Rastafari, and that the Sacramental Cannabis Act limits religious freedom by confining lawful sacramental use to approved places of worship. Weekes accepted the first half of that. She found the provisions “prima facie interfere with the constitutional interest protected by Sections 11 and 19 of the Constitution, including the privacy of the home and the freedom of conscience, and that they bear with particular force upon Rastafarians because cannabis has sacramental significance within that faith,” per Barbados Today’s report of the judgment.

Then she found the interference justified. The restrictions are “reasonably required in the interest of public health, public order, public safety, and the prevention of crime,” she ruled, citing evidence from Deputy Police Commissioner Erwin Boyce, senior consultant psychiatrist Brian MacLachlan, and senior lecturer in psychiatry Dr Maisha Emmanuel.

On the Sacramental Cannabis Act, the court drew the distinction that decides the case. The 2019 Act does not ban cannabis at home. The Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act does. The Sacramental Cannabis Act only relaxes that ban inside a permit regime, so the question became whether the accommodation is so narrow that it fails the Constitution. “The SCA may be narrower than the claimant wishes, but that does not make it unconstitutional,” Weekes wrote. Widening it, she added, “lies with Parliament.”

The discrimination ground failed on related logic. Any heavier impact on Rastafari “arises because cannabis is sacramental within Rastafarianism, not because the DAPCA classifies or targets persons by creed.”

What This Means

For visitors, nothing on the ground has moved. Possession of up to 14 grams still draws a $200 fine rather than a criminal charge, larger amounts remain a criminal offence, and there is still no retail counter in Barbados where a tourist can legally buy cannabis. Sacramental permits stay tied to registered places of worship, so a Rastafari traveler hoping to worship on the island should plan around a tabernacle rather than a rental villa.

For residents, and for the wider region, the value of this judgment is the method it lays out. A government defending cannabis restrictions in a Caribbean court now has a worked example of the evidence that carried the day: police testimony, clinical testimony, and deference to Parliament on questions of public health. Rock said after the July ruling that he intended to appeal within the 28-day window and was seeking help from the Legal Aid Department. No filing has been reported. Watch for one, and watch whether the Barbados Medicinal Cannabis Licensing Authority issues guidance on how the reasons affect the sacramental permits already in force.