Court to decide on ‘dagga’ production tussle
Gaborone High Court will decide on the legal tussle between government and a company that has been accused of ploughing dagga instead of hemp as proposed after they were issued the permit.
The company, Fresh Standard (Pty) Ltd represented by Advocate Duma Boko, appeared before Justice Mokwadi Chris Gabanagae last week seeking revocation of the permit to be reviewed after disputing the allegations.
They also want the court to order production to be resumed after it was halted on the said suspicion.
The judge reserved judgement for March 31, 2021 after seeing both parties and receiving all necessary documents in relation to the matter since no oral submissions were made.
Meanwhile, the company that was granted written exemption to produce hemp in October 18, 2018 by the then Minister of Agricultural Development and Food Security, Patrick Ralotsia in their detailed court papers argued that the revocation of the permit was irrational since it was operating lawfully.
According to the director of the company, Barend Daniel de Beer, in his founding affidavit wanted the revocation of the permit reviewed and set aside by the court.
He explained that he received an exemption to grow, process and produce products from cannabis sativa and hemp dominant strands for medical and industrial purposes in the country.
De Beer said following the granting of exemption, he spent millions of pula in establishing its business and that it was to the knowledge of the ministry and the then minister and his permanent secretary.
“On or about May 7, 2019 representatives of the Narcotics Squad of the Police arrived at the farm where I had planted its crop in green house tunnels. They uprooted the plants and removed them from the farm,” he said
He added the move by the government forced them to make urgent enquires as to why the uprooting happened as they were operating lawfully and that he later obtained a copy of a letter from the ministry dated March 29, 2019 signed by the PS, which accordingly was to withdraw the exemption.
It was de Beer’s contention that the communication about the withdrawal was illegal in that it was contrary to the empowering statute and unreasonable because the decision was made without affording him any form of hearing despite the serious effect that the decision had on his business.