Lawyers with an open mind or just a sense of humor...

Lawyers with an open mind or just a sense of humor. This document has been floating around relating to "Dagga arrests / charges " what is the validity of this.

please remove if in appropriate.

HAVE ALL YOUR DAGGA CHARGES DROPPED WITH THIS DOCUMENT: Copy and edit, print and sign. If you arrested, present this statement to get off the charges.

Constitutional Dagga Rights Statement by accused (Your Name Here), regarding charges of possession (and/or cultivation/dealing/transport ) of Dagga (Cannabis) at his/her home/in his vehicle/ on his person/ wherever) in Case number (Your case number here), (Your Court name here) Magistrate's Court.

“With respect to this court,

"I do not recognise the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court in relation to any charges brought against me for possession or cultivation or trading in dagga, as the provisions, justification and Constitutionality of the prohibition of Dagga have already been challenged by a number of cases in the High Courts of South Africa, and were considered by the Constitutional Court, in Case 108/17 CCT, on 7 November 2017, and are presently pending judgement by the Constitutional Court"

At this stage in the Dagga Constitutional matter, I insist that it is in the interests of Justice and the rights of all citizens, including myself, that all dagga charges must be stayed pending the Constitutional outcome. Further information regarding the Constitutional case is provided below for the information of the court.”

Consideration of this Statement in relation to the present ongoing WCHC Constitutional Challenge.

1.1 Information in this section is provided by Jeremy David Acton, a Plaintiff in the Western Cape Constitutional Dagga hearings. (Case 4153/12 WCHC)

1.2 The matter was heard on 13 and 14 December 2016.

1.3 Constitutional Claims regarding Cannabis by the Plaintiffs in terms of the Bill of Rights were as follows (numbering as per original document):

“ The plaintiffs also allege that the prohibition is an unjustifiable infringement of the following fundamental rights under Chapter 2 of the Constitution (the Bill of Rights), namely:

15.1 The (Section 9) right to equality; and

15.2 The (Section 10) right to inherent dignity and the right to have dignity respected and protected; and 15.3 The (Section 12) right to freedom and security of the person; and

15.4 The (Section 12(1) (e)) right to not be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way; and

15.5 The (Section 14) right to privacy; and

15.5 The (Section 15 (1)) right of freedom of thought, belief, opinion, conscience and religion in relation to the use, possession and cultivation of Cannabis for all these purposes by adults; and

15.6 The (Section 16 (d)) right to academic freedom and freedom of scientific research by citizens in relation to Cannabis

15.7 The (Section 18) right to freedom of association; and

15.8 The (Section 24 (a)) right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

15.9 The (Section 24 (b) (iii)) right to ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources; and

15.10 The (Section 27(1) (a)) right of access to health care services; and

15.11 The (Section 27(1) (b)) right of access to sufficient food and water; and

15.12 The (Section 30) right of citizens to participate in the cultural life of their choice; and

15.13 The (Section 31 (a)) right of citizens to not be denied the right to freely to form, join and maintain cultural associations with other members of the Dagga Culture or any other secular, cultural or religious grouping that uses Cannabis; and

15.14 The (Section 31 (b)) right of citizens to not be denied the right, with other members of their chosen community, to enjoy their culture and/or practice their religion;”

(end of quotation of claims)

1.4 A judgment was handed down on 31 March 2017 in relation to only Section 14 Privacy right of adults to privately cultivate and consume Cannabis at home.

1.5 None of the other claims were considered and yet none were dismissed.

1.6 The State appealed the judgment on 24 May 2017, and the original Plaintiffs also cross-appealed, claiming that the judgment failed to attend to all claims, and motivating why all claims and considerations in relation to cannabis must be considered and judged.

1.7 The honorable Constitutional Court heard these appeals on 7 November 2017, and judgment is pending.

1.8 The Applicant wishes to respectfully point out that even though the judgment on the Western Cape High Court was limited to a Section 14 Privacy concession, the honorable Constitutional Court has recognized that claims not attended to by the WCHC judgment could and would be returned by the Plaintiffs to the High Court and has therefore considered carrying out the evaluation of ALL of the Constitutional claims by the Western Cape Plaintiffs, and it is expected that judgment will be given on all claims.

1.9 The Applicant therefore respectfully submits that private adult consumption/possession at home is not the only grounds upon which any stay may be granted, but that a stay may be granted in regard to any charge regarding Cannabis, whether for dealing cultivation, possession, extraction, transportation, consumption, etc. ALL provisions of the prohibition are still presently challenged.

1.10 Further, in considering the Section 9 Equality of the applicant to all the previously cited precedents, (on Pg 9 and 10) the Applicant claims equal right in law, and in benefit and protection of the law, to citizens who were:

Cultivators: (E Vorster Case 17927/14 WCHC; J. Rubin Case 7294/13 WCHC etc )

Possessors: (J. Acton Case 4153/12 WCHC, B. A. Wentzel, Case 8658/13, WCHC etc)

Dealers: ( C. Vankerkhof Case 17925/14 WCHC, S. Bohm Case 7294/13, WCHC etc)

6.29 The applicant is therefore respectfully of the view that any and all ongoing applications for a stay may still be considered and granted by the honorable High Court in relation to all of these aspects and presumptions of the cannabis prohibition as these matters are all before the Constitutional Court at this time, with a judgment expected by 31 March 2018, and that it is in the interest of justice for such stays to be granted at this time.

I therefore would therefore respectfully ask the court to at the very least provisionally withdraw the charges against me pending the final Constitutional Court ruling on the judgement, (which hearing takes place in the Constitutional Court, Johannesburg, on 7 November 2017), in the interests of Justice and in respect of my own rights to a Constitutional defence regarding my private use of Cannabis, as have been claimed by others.


(Your Name Here)

quite a few like it.... Question is do you buy it?. The whole issue is rather sensitive subject for my self and MANY MANY others. please share thoughts on this or PM/DM your confidential option. I do not wish to cause a stir. Positive ammo to move forward

Reply to this post

Until the Con Court has ruled its best to avoid possessing dagga. The question of legality should be settled soon but prosecutors and courts are not staying prosecution for this yet. Instead of risking having a pending charge its best to lay low until confirmation. #420. I don't do weed but it's a Hell of a lot safer than a lot of lawful alternatives out there.

Reply to this post


Im no grammer police... but its spelled

Zol Oliver Godfrey ??

angelou3 better. ??

Reply to this post

Reply to this thread

This site uses cookies and other tracking technologies to differentiate between individual computers, personalized service settings, analytical and statistical purposes, and customization of content and ad serving. This site may also contain third-party cookies. If you continue to use the site, we assume it matches the current settings, but you can change them at any time. More info here: Privacy and Cookie Policy