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

The appellant, Garreth Anver Prince, a practising Rastafarian, applied to register his contract of community service with the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope as required for admission as an attorney. The Law Society refused registration because Prince had prior convictions for possession of cannabis and stated that he intended to continue using cannabis as required by his religious beliefs. Prince challenged the refusal, alleging infringements of his constitutional rights, including freedom of religion, dignity, equality, and the right to choose a profession. During proceedings, the constitutionality of 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—both prohibiting possession and use of cannabis—was raised, particularly their failure to provide a religious exemption for Rastafari.

The final outcome is not fully contained in the provided extract. From the judgment text supplied, the Court had not yet concluded its ruling, but was in the process of determining whether further evidence should be admitted or whether the matter should be remitted for additional factual inquiry.

This judgment is significant for its emphasis on the evidentiary burden in constitutional litigation, particularly where limitation and justification under section 36 of the Constitution are concerned. It underscores that courts cannot decide complex constitutional questions—such as religious exemptions to criminal prohibitions—on speculation or inadequate factual records. The case illustrates the Constitutional Court’s insistence on proper procedural foundations when challenging legislation and highlights the importance of reasonable accommodation of religious practices in South African constitutional law.