In May 2006, violence erupted during a march organised by Satawu in Cape Town. During the ensuing chaos, extensive damage was caused to vehicles and shops along the route of the march. Eight people - including a trader, a flower seller, a carpenter, a customs officer and businesspeople - who were affected by the march, sued Satawu for damages.
The unions had argued people's right to peacefully and unarmed, assemble, demonstrate and present petitions is protected by section 17 of the constitution. If allowed to stand, the unions said, Section 11(2)(b) in the Regulation of Gatherings Act would lead to the end of public assembly and protest. The unions argued further that the regulation of gatherings and the imposition of liability on organisers and conveners for harm arising from gatherings was an important legislative objective. The unions said the issue was not whether to impose civil liability on the organisers or conveners of a gathering for resultant harm, but how to do so giving appropriate weight to the right to freedom of assembly, and set clear and rational standards for liability, as required by the constitution.
However, according to Business Day, counsel for the eight affected people said the violence which concerned the drafters of the act was not only violence inflicted by the state against those assembling, but also by those assembling against innocent and vulnerable third parties. "Where riot damage is caused, the gathering is obviously not peaceful. Therefore section 17 of the constitution does not encompass and protect gatherings which fall under section 11 of the act. Put differently, there is no right to assemble unpeacefully," Anton Katz SC and Darryl Cooke said. The matter will be heard next month.
Read the full article on www.businessday.co.za.
