Police defend controversial protest law in court

2017-06-16 14:46
Bangladeshi police stand guard during a nationwide strike called by the Islamist political party, Bangladesh Jumaat-e-Islami in Dhaka. (File, AFP)

Bangladeshi police stand guard during a nationwide strike called by the Islamist political party, Bangladesh Jumaat-e-Islami in Dhaka. (File, AFP)

Multimedia   ·   User Galleries   ·   News in Pictures Send us your pictures  ·  Send us your stories

Cape Town - On Wednesday in the Western Cape High Court, the Social Justice Coalition (SJC) argued that the Regulation of Gatherings Act was being used to criminalise the democratic right to protest.

On Thursday, it was the turn of the Minister of Police, represented by Advocate Karrisha Pillay, who is opposing the application by the SJC, GroundUp reported. 

Pillay said that the purpose of giving a notice of intention to protest was to ensure that proper planning is done, that gatherings are managed in an orderly manner with minimal disruption, and that any risk of violence is mitigated to the greatest possible extent. It also allows for the proper deployment of police resources.

“As a point of departure … the requirement of notice in terms of section 3 of the Gatherings Act does not result in an infringement of the rights protected by section 17 of the Constitution,” said an affidavit filed on behalf of the minister.

“The notice provision is not about whether the gathering is peaceful or not, it is also the level of disruption that may be caused,” said Pillay.

She said, “None of the parties raised issues before this court with the notice… They all accept … that it serves a legitimate government purpose. The question is whether it criminalises non-compliance in order to deter un-notified gatherings.”

Pillay said there was a higher propensity for violence in cases where no notice was given.

But Judge Thandazwa Nditha said, “Before us there is no data that shows us that in this instance where there were no marshals, there was violence. We only have an opinion that there is propensity [for violence].”

Pillay compared the criminalisation of protests to that of driving above the speed limit, mentioning the risk that it poses to the public.

But Nditha interrupted: “For me pursuing a constitutional right to be heard cannot be compared to driving. I say this taking into account the history of our country. For people to say that I have the right to be heard can never compare to I have [right] to drive my car.”

Advocate Michael Bishop for the SJC said an un-notified gathering can be a peaceful gathering and a notified gathering can be a non-peaceful gathering. The assumption that un-notified gatherings will be violent is a very dangerous assumption.

He said driving drunk is not protected constitutionally and therefore is not a criminalisation of a constitutional right.

The matter now awaits judgment.

Read more on:    saps  |  legislation

Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.