March Peacefully As Law Enforcement Will Quell Any Criminality - Premier Lesufi

Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi's assurance that law enforcement will quell criminality during upcoming anti-illegal immigration protests highlights the delicate balance in South African law between the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and the state's obligation to maintain public order. This article examines the legal framework governing public gatherings, primarily Section 17 of the Constitution and the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993. It delves into the duties of conveners and the powers of law enforcement, particularly in light of the Constitutional Court's ruling in *Mlungwana v The State*, which decriminalised the failure to give notice for a gathering. The article underscores that while the right to protest is fundamental, it is not absolute and does not shield participants from liability for criminal acts or riot damage.

The Premier's pronouncement serves as a timely reminder of the legal complexities surrounding public demonstrations in South Africa. While the right to assemble is a cornerstone of democratic expression, its exercise must be balanced against the rights of others and the imperative for public safety. This article will unpack the legal framework governing public gatherings in South Africa, examining the constitutional underpinnings, statutory regulations, and key judicial interpretations that define the boundaries within which protests must operate and how law enforcement may legitimately intervene to prevent or address criminality.

To regulate the exercise of this constitutional right, particularly for larger gatherings, Parliament enacted the Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 (RGA). The RGA aims to facilitate peaceful demonstrations while simultaneously providing mechanisms for authorities to manage potential disruptions and ensure public safety. It applies to any assembly, concourse, or procession of more than 15 persons in a public place. The Act outlines specific procedures, including the requirement for conveners to give notice of an intended gathering to the relevant local authority's responsible officer at least seven days in advance. This notice facilitates consultations between conveners, the responsible officer, and the police (often referred to as 'golden triangle' meetings) to discuss the gathering's route, conditions, and potential risks.

The implications of *Mlungwana* are profound for practitioners. While conveners no longer face criminal charges solely for failing to provide notice, they (and the organisations they represent) remain subject to civil liability for riot damage under Section 11 of the RGA if the gathering turns violent and causes harm. Furthermore, participants who engage in criminal acts during a protest, such as public violence, malicious damage to property, or assault, can still be individually prosecuted under general criminal law. The Premier's emphasis on quelling criminality is therefore a reminder that the constitutional protection for assembly is contingent on its peaceful and unarmed nature; it does not extend to acts of lawlessness. The state's role is to facilitate peaceful protest, but also to protect the rights and safety of non-protesting citizens and their property.

Attorneys advising protest organisers must ensure they understand the notice requirements, the importance of appointing marshals, and the potential for civil liability for riot damage. Conversely, those advising individuals or businesses affected by protests should be aware of the avenues for recourse against organisers and participants for unlawful acts. The ongoing vigilance of both civil society and law enforcement will determine how effectively the right to protest is upheld in South Africa, while simultaneously ensuring that public order and safety are maintained, particularly in the context of potentially volatile issues such as anti-illegal immigration demonstrations.