Assembly

Democratic Assembly for Restoration and Empowerment & 3 Others v Saunyama N.O & 3 Others (CCZ 9/18, Civil Appeal No. CCZ 5/18) [2018] ZWCC 9 (17 October 2018);

This was an application seeking a determination as to whether, section 27 of the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), banning any public processions or demonstrations in the Harare Central Business District for two weeks, was constitutional.

The court determined the constitutional validity of section 27 of the POSA. The court found that the provision infringes the right to freedom of demonstration guaranteed by section 59 of the Constitution. The provision failed the constitution validity test for a law limiting fundamental rights and freedoms. Section 27 was held to be unfair, unreasonable, unjustifiable and an unnecessary manner. 

In conclusion, the court held that section 27 of POSA was unconstitutional. The High Court declaration of constitutional invalidity of section 27 of POSA was suspended for 6 months from the date of judgment. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for the determination of the appeal, and each party was ordered to bear its cost.

Dzamara & Others v Police Commissioner General (N.O.) & Others (HH 398-16 HC 6397/16) [2016] ZWHHC 398 (04 July 2016);

1

HH 398-16

HC 6397/16

 

                                                                                                

 

PATSON DZAMARA
and
LINDA MASARIRA
and

TATENDA MOMBEYARARA
and
PRIDE MKONO
and

DIRK FREY

versus

COMMISSIONER GENERAL POLICE NO
and

OFFICER COMMANDING HARARE PROVINCE NO

and

MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS NO

 

 

 

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
TSANGA J

HARARE, 27 June and 4 July 2016

 

 

This application sought a provisional order to interdict the police from unlawfully interfering with their constitutional right to freedom of assembly, freedom from violence and freedom to demonstrate peacefully. The applicants argued that the actions of the police were unlawful and constituted a threat to applicants’ rights and fundamental freedoms, and contempt of the Constitution.

The court determined the urgency for resolution of the matter. The court found no basis for hearing the matter as an urgent application, mainly because the overall actions of the police could not amount to a disproportionate restriction on the freedom of assembly and the right to demonstrate. The court found that the prevention of crime, as part of public security, was a legitimate reason for imposition of restrictions on a demonstration that had shown a propensity for degenerating into unlawful activities.

Accordingly, the matter was removed from the urgent roll.

Subscribe to Assembly