• About Us
  • Photo Gallery
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Use
Tuesday, October 14, 2025
Republic Online
Advertisement
  • Home
  • News
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Showbiz
  • Sports
  • Foreign
  • Coronavirus
  • Opinion
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Showbiz
  • Sports
  • Foreign
  • Coronavirus
  • Opinion
No Result
View All Result
Republic Online
No Result
View All Result
Home General

Supreme Court dismisses review application to allow for the growing of “weed”

The Supreme Court has 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.

Andy Frimpong Manso by Andy Frimpong Manso
May 24, 2023
in General, Lead story, Local News, News, Review, Top Stories
0 0
0
Supreme Court dismisses review application to allow for the growing of “weed”
0
SHARES
40
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

The Supreme Court has 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.

The review application filed by the office of the Attorney General was dismissed in a 5-4 decision.

The Supreme Court had earlier ruled in favour of an applicant who invoked the original jurisdiction of the apex court to strike the provision which was legislated in violation of Article 106 of the 1992 constitution.

According to the applicant, the said provision was introduced without an explanatory memorandum as mandated by law.
The apex court after considering the review application dismissed it for not meeting the threshold.

In July last year, the apex court struck out and described as unconstitutional, Section 43 of the Narcotics Control Commission Act 2020 (Act 1019).

Section 43 of Act 1019 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.

Tags: NACOCNarcotic Control Commission ActSupreme Court




NEWSLETTER

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Facebook
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In

Add New Playlist

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Showbiz
  • Sports
  • Foreign
  • Coronavirus
  • Opinion

© 2021 All Rights Reserved myrepubliconline.

Verified by MonsterInsights