Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and Others

The appellant, a practising Rastafarian, applied to register his contract of community service with the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope as required under the Attorneys Act 53 of 1979. The Law Society refused because he had prior convictions for possession of cannabis and stated his intention to continue using cannabis as required by his religion. The appellant challenged this refusal, alleging infringement of his constitutional rights, including freedom of religion, dignity, equality, and the right to choose a profession. During proceedings, he also attacked the constitutionality of statutory provisions criminalising cannabis use (section 4(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 and section 22A(10) of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 101 of 1965), to the extent that they failed to provide a religious exemption for Rastafari.

The Court did not decide the merits of the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions at this stage and held that further evidence was necessary to properly determine the constitutional issues raised.

This case is significant for clarifying the evidentiary requirements in constitutional litigation, particularly where justification under section 36 of the Constitution is at issue. It underscores that courts require a proper factual record to assess limitations on fundamental rights and highlights the importance of procedural diligence when challenging the constitutionality of legislation. The case also forms part of the broader jurisprudence on religious freedom and reasonable accommodation in South African law.