Long before cannabis became a global controversy, colonial Kenya banned it under international pressure—despite Britain’s own scientific findings that showed it caused no serious harm. The decision, shaped by diplomacy rather than evidence, continues to influence Kenyan drug laws to this day.
Britain’s Early Knowledge: The Indian Hemp Drugs Commission
In 1893, the British government established the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission (IHDC) to investigate cannabis use in colonial India. The seven-member commission spent a year interviewing doctors, users, police, and religious leaders. Their findings filled more than 3,000 pages. The conclusion: moderate cannabis use caused no significant physical, mental, or moral harm. The report also warned against prohibition, suggesting that such a ban might do more harm than good.
Yet when Britain joined other nations at the International Opium Convention in The Hague in 1912, it did not share these findings.
The 1912 Hague Conference: A Missed Opportunity
The conference, which brought together colonial powers to regulate drugs like opium and cocaine, also touched—albeit briefly—on cannabis. Italy, worried about hashishism in its North African colonies, pushed to include cannabis in the international drug control framework. However, other nations, including Britain, treated it as a side issue. Cannabis was only mentioned in the Final Protocol, and no binding commitments were made regarding its regulation.
Still, the wording of the final document encouraged signatory powers to “study the effects of cannabis and, where necessary, adopt internal legislation.” This vague clause would soon be interpreted in Kenya not as a call for research, but as a green light for immediate prohibition.
Kenya’s Swift Reaction: A Ban Without Evidence
Soon after the conference, Governor Henry Conway Belfield, the colonial head of Kenya, enacted the Abuse of Opiates Prevention Ordinance. The law passed in 1913 and came into force on March 4, 1914, officially criminalizing cannabis in Kenya.
Belfield, a career colonial administrator loyal to imperial policy, was not reacting to a documented public health crisis. There was no evidence of widespread cannabis abuse or social disorder in Kenya at the time. Rather, he interpreted the vague phrase “internal legislation” from the Hague convention as justification to act quickly—without public debate, scientific consultation, or regard for local customs.
This marked the beginning of cannabis prohibition in Kenya—introduced not because of local conditions, but due to imperial alignment with international expectations.
Local Realities Ignored
Cannabis had been used in various Kenyan communities long before colonization. In coastal and inland areas, it served recreational, medicinal, and spiritual purposes. Yet colonial authorities rarely documented African views on the plant. The ban was top-down, bureaucratic, and largely detached from Kenyan society.
There is no record that the IHDC findings were ever discussed in Kenya’s colonial legislative council. Nor was there any formal effort to study the local impact of cannabis or consult African elders or healers who understood its uses.
A Regional Comparison: Kenya Acts Alone
While Kenya acted swiftly, other British colonies were more cautious. India, despite hosting the IHDC inquiry, did not criminalize cannabis during the early 20th century. Nigeria delayed cannabis legislation until the 1930s. Even the United States, often cited for its strict drug laws, did not impose a national cannabis ban until 1937, through the Marijuana Tax Act. European countries moved even more slowly, with most waiting until the 1960s to criminalize possession or use.
Kenya, therefore, stands out as one of the earliest colonies to ban cannabis—and did so based more on bureaucratic interpretation than scientific evidence or public pressure.
The Lingering Effects of Colonial Law
Today, Kenya’s approach to cannabis is still shaped by the 1914 ordinance. While some public figures and civil society groups have called for legalization or decriminalization, possession remains a criminal offense. Users continue to face arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment—even for small amounts.
In contrast, many European countries now issue fines, warnings, or probation for personal use. Others have moved toward medical cannabis programs or legalization, citing the same arguments presented in the 1893 IHDC report: that moderate use does not cause significant harm.
Yet Kenya’s legal framework remains rooted in a colonial-era decision that ignored both African practices and the British government’s own commissioned research.
Reconsidering the Turning Point
The criminalization of cannabis in Kenya did not begin with public health studies, parliamentary debates, or local demands. It began with a conference in The Hague, followed by a unilateral ordinance from a colonial governor. That moment—marked by haste, omission, and external influence—set the course for a century of prohibition.
As cannabis policy continues to evolve around the world, Kenya faces a question: should a decision made under colonial pressure in 1914 still dictate national law in 2025?
The answer may lie in revisiting the evidence, listening to Kenyan communities, and recognizing that the real turning point came not in response to crisis—but through an act of political compliance.