A bill seeking to soften penalties for possession of marijuana for personal use could have its first reading in Parliament on Thursday.

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) (Amendment) Bill 2015 is listed under private members’ business on the Order Paper.

APNU+AFC MP Michael Carrington is to move a motion seeking approval of the National Assembly for the introduction and first reading of the bill in accordance with Standing Order No. 52 (1).

Carrington’s move follows a public outcry over the sentencing in November of football coach Vibert Butts to three years imprisonment for possession of 46 grammes of cannabis which he had said was for his private use. Butts is out on bail while the sentence is being appealed. According to the law, possession of any amount of cannabis over 15 grammes is considered trafficking, which is an offence that carries a minimum sentence of three years.

A number of protests were held over the sentencing and last month sixteen representatives of several Rastafarian organisations met with the Attorney General Basil Williams at his invitation in the AG’s Chambers and a key issue discussed was the decriminalisation of two ounces of marijuana for personal use.

The AG informed the Rastafarian Representatives that in keeping with the Government’s mandate of consultation and transparency, the issue will be raised at Cabinet.

Members of the Rastafarian community had staged a picketing exercise on December 3, 2015 outside the Attorney General Chambers on the matter but the AG was out of office at the time.

While acknowledging that the laws and by extension the penalties for cannabis offences ought to be reviewed, Minister of Public Security Khemraj Ramjattan speaking to Stabroek News last month also argued that the current absence of a clear sentencing policy is a problem.

When asked for his views on the calls, including by the Rastafarian community, for repeal of the law governing the possession of cannabis, Ramjattan stated that all the laws, and especially the penalties, need to be reviewed.

A clear sentencing policy, he further said, needs to be worked out by the Chancellor and other members of the judiciary. An example, he said, would be to limit the penalty to a one-year maximum sentence.

He added that public opprobrium over the issue is being seen due to the absence of clear sentencing guidelines.

According to Ramjattan, magistrates and judges need to be conscious of public opinion and it is also important that the circumstances of a case be understood. He said that the entire debate is more of a sentencing matter than a need for the legislature to change the law.