If the fight for legalization has to take place in the political arena rather than through courts, so be it – the struggle carries on.
That’s essentially the message from GUN President Brian Jafphta, who told Cannabiz Africa last night that GUN is to register as a political party.
“We have studied the High Court judgment of Thursday (9 July 2026)” said Jaftha in response to Judge Claudia Claasen’s ruling earlier in the day. “The court said the decision on cannabis lies with Parliament and government. We agree, that is why Ganja Users of Namibia will register as a political party”.
Jaftha said: “We will take the fight for adult cannabis rights, dignity and justice straight to Parliament,” to enforce “adult rights, adult choices. We fight for freedom, health, jobs and justice”.
Ras Jaftha is the face of Namibia’s Rastas’ struggle for decriminalisation. He was released from a Windhoek jail last winter just short of serving out a full two-year term for possessing less than 100 grams of cannabis, valued at less than N$2 000 (1N$ = 1 ZAR).
Many believed his Windhoek arrest in a sting operation and subsequent conviction and incarceration were authorities’ attempt to silence a leading cannabis activist they viewed as a thorn in government’s side for his criticism of colonial-era anti-cannabis laws that disenfranchise Rastas and cannabis users in the southern African country.
In her long-awaited verdict, Judge Claasen upheld government’s special plea that faulted GUN’s lawsuit as ‘unripe’ and affirmed the State’s position that cannabis decriminalisation is a prerogative of the executive and the legislature, not the courts.
She also ruled that her judgment was final, closing out the prospects of a High Court appeal.
Ras Jaftha and GUN Secretary General Ras Borro Ndungula were the plaintiffs with five government entities under the Office of the Government Attorney as the defendants: the Prosecutor-General, the Inspector-General of the Namibian Police (Nampol), the ministers of health and justice and the government.
In a 21-page affidavit, the judge affirmed both government’s defence arguments and the special plea government invoked at the start of the trial, which cited ongoing government efforts to review cannabis legislation in Namibia. Alternatively, Judge Claasen found tenable the defendants’ assertion that GUN’s case was brought prematurely as the executive and legislature were reviewing prohibitive and contentious colonial-era laws that GUN argued were outdated and inconsistent with various parts of the country’s post-democracy constitution.
One particular legislative protocol GUN took aim at is the Abuse of Dependence-Producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act 41 of 1971 (RSA) Act.
However, the State’s filing of the special plea at the start of the trial in July 2025 slowed progress as the court issued a series of postponements in a bid to get the parties resolve the plea for the trial proper to proceed.
The special plea contended Namibia’s Law Reform and Development Commission (LRDC) was already adjudicating cannabis’s place in Namibia, rendering GUN’s case premature or unripe.
The parties’ special plea inputs were subsequently made an order of the court before final closing arguments on 22 May 2026.
“The first to fifth defendants’ special plea is upheld,” Judge Claasen stated in her ruling, which deferred court costs but stated the decision was final. Aside from concurring with the special plea, the judge noted the defendants’ argument that the state was currently developing a new bill to regulate cannabis offences and that cannabis was a classified Schedule 5 substance made available to doctors and scientists under special permit conditions in already existing medicine and drug laws.
The court nonetheless acknowledged GUN’s assertions of constitutionality precepts but explained it had factored in a multiplicity of issues, including public health policy, criminal law enforcement and broader social policies relating to addiction potential and social and economic costs in reaching its decision.
GUN wants cannabis decriminalised for medicinal, spiritual and religious purposes, citing constitutional rights.
“Generally, courts should not interfere with Parliament’s ongoing legislative processes, except in the clearest cases of constitutional obligation. In this matter, the impugned legislation represents a policy choice committed to Parliament, requiring democratic deliberation,” the ruling concluded.
#
