You can’t grow 'wee' in Ghana – Supreme Court affirms in 5-4 ruling
Supreme Court has in a 5-4 decision upheld its decision to strike out provisions in the Narcotic Control Commission Act that allowed for the cultivation of certain kinds of cannabis for medicinal and industrial purposes.
This was after it dismissed a review application filed by the office of the Attorney General.
The apex court after considering the review application dismissed it for not meeting the threshold.
In July last year, the court struck out and described as unconstitutional, Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act 2020 (Act 1019) which allows the Minister of the Interior, upon the recommendation of the Narcotics Control Commission (NACOC), to grant an entity the licence to cultivate cannabis of not more than 0.3 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content for industrial and medicinal purposes.
The court held that the law was unconstitutional because there was no debate in Parliament on it before its passage into law, as stipulated by Article 106 (5) (6) of the 1992 Constitution.
Again, the apex court was of the considered opinion that the explanatory memorandum attached to the bill placed before Parliament did not set out in detail the policy change, the defects in the existing law and the necessity to introduce a law to license the cultivation of cannabis.
Such an omission, it held, was a violation of Article 106 (2) of the 1992 Constitution.
- Classfmonline.com
Supreme Court has in a 5-4 decision upheld its decision to strike out provisions in the Narcotic Control Commission Act that allowed for the cultivation of certain kinds of cannabis for medicinal and industrial purposes.
This was after it dismissed a review application filed by the office of the Attorney General.
The apex court after considering the review application dismissed it for not meeting the threshold.
In July last year, the court struck out and described as unconstitutional, Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act 2020 (Act 1019) which allows the Minister of the Interior, upon the recommendation of the Narcotics Control Commission (NACOC), to grant an entity the licence to cultivate cannabis of not more than 0.3 Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content for industrial and medicinal purposes.
The court held that the law was unconstitutional because there was no debate in Parliament on it before its passage into law, as stipulated by Article 106 (5) (6) of the 1992 Constitution.
Again, the apex court was of the considered opinion that the explanatory memorandum attached to the bill placed before Parliament did not set out in detail the policy change, the defects in the existing law and the necessity to introduce a law to license the cultivation of cannabis.
Such an omission, it held, was a violation of Article 106 (2) of the 1992 Constitution.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0