Great confusion reigns about directives issued by someone in the South African Police Services (as the Constitution refers to it) or the Police Force (as the militarists and other enemies of freedom refer to it) to a number of municipalities not to allow marches for the duration of the 2010 World Cup. According to Professor Jane Duncan:
A snap survey conducted at the end of last week of other municipalities hosting World Cup matches revealed that a blanket ban on gatherings is in operation. According to the Rustenberg municipality, ‘gatherings are closed for the World Cup’. The Mbombela municipality was told by the SAPS that they were not going to allow gatherings during the World Cup. The Cape Town City Council claimed that it continues to accept applications for marches, but indicated that it ‘may be a problem’ during the World Cup period. According to the Nelson Mandela Bay and Ethekwini municipalities, the police will not allow gatherings over the World Cup period.
If this is true, it would mean that parts of South Africa are now effectively functioning under a state of emergency in which the right to freedom of assembly and protest have been suspended. This would be both illegal and unconstitutional. Other reports have suggested that such orders were indeed given, but that the police are now backtracking – probably because the police have realised that they are breaking the law and that the order, in fact, constitutes a grave breach of the law and the Constitution.
It is a sad day indeed when the police itself become a threat to our democracy and our rights because Fifa and the government want us all to behave and shut up for the next month and to forget about our democratic rights.
The starting point of the Regulation of Gatherings Act, which was passed in 1993, is that anyone who complies with the requirements set out in the Act is entitled to assemble, to march and to hand over petitions. It is our democratic right and a fundamental aspect of a democracy that we should be able to express our views and grievances in this collective manner. If we want to protest the manner in which Fifa has taken over our country and is stealing our money and robbing us of our dignity, we have every right to do so.
The Act requires organisers of a gathering or march to give notice of the gathering or march at least 7 days before it is to take place. A responsible officer appointed by the Police Commissioner is then required to engage with the organisers in good faith and to consult with them to ensure that a march or a gathering is conducted in a peaceful and orderly fashion.
If the police officer cannot reach an agreement about the way in which the march or gathering should take place, he or she may - if there are reasonable grounds to do so – impose conditions with regard to the holding of the gathering to ensure the free flow of traffic and to prevent any damage to property or harm to anyone. The Act therefore makes it clear that in ordinary circumstances when one wants to march, demonstrate or gather, permission for the event MUST be given – although reasonable conditions could be imposed in order to protect the interest of the public (the interests of the government of the day or of Fifa would be utterly irrelevant).
There is no provision in the Regulation of Gatherings Act that allows the Police Commissioner or anyone else to issue a blanket ban on the holding of gatherings. There is no provision that states that gatherings can be banned because the police are busy ferrying around Sepp Blatter in a blue light convoy and do not have time to deal with marches and demonstrations. There is no provision in the Act that states gatherings can be banned because the international media is looking and the gathering will give our government or Fifa a bad name or embarrass them.
I have re-read the Act and can confirm that it does not even allow our proxy-government – also known as Fifa – the right to issue such a ban or to request the Police to do so. There are good reasons for this. A blanket ban would constitute a fundamental and unjustifiable infringement on the right guaranteed in section 17 of the Constitution. This section guarantees for everyone the right “peacefully and unarmed to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and present petitions”.
It will probably come as a surprise to Sepp Blatter and other leaders of Fifa (who, I read to my utter surprise and shock, has been called a quasi-Mafia for the way in which they run their “business” and take over host countries), that the South African Constitution does not contain any exception for Fifa and hence does not allows it or anyone acting on Fifa’s behalf to issue orders imposing a blanket ban on gatherings and marches. This can only happen if the life of the nation is threatened and Parliament enacts a State of Emergency and even then the emergency can usually only last for 21 days.
It is true that section 5 of the Regulation of Gatherings Act does allow for the prohibition of gatherings and marches but only in very limited circumstances. It can only be done if ”credible information on oath is brought to the attention” of the responsible police officer that:
there is a threat that a proposed gathering will result in serious disruption of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, injury to participants in the gathering or other persons, or extensive damage to property, and that the Police and the traffic officers in question will not be able to contain this threat, he shall forthwith meet or, if time does not allow it, consult with the convener and the authorized member, if possible, and any other person with whom, he believes, he should meet or consult, including the representatives of any police community consultative forum in order to consider the prohibition of the gathering.
But even then, the police officer must first consult with the organisers to find a way of dealing with such concerns. Only where the police officer on reasonable grounds is convinced that no amendment of the conditions for the march would prevent any of the dangers set out above, can a march be banned.
The eyes of the world will be on South Africa over the next month and for those citizens who feel aggrieved about any matter (whether it is about the shocking harassment of Abahlali baseMjondolo members by police and ANC aligned thugs, the destruction of fynbos by golf estate developers, the attack on the Peace Flotilla by the Israeli navy, or the fact that Julius Malema allegedly has R53 million in the bank and allegedly often drinks tea with Minister Simphiwe Nyanda) it is a golden opportunity to have their voices heard in the full glare of the international media spotlight.
The police service – who is supposed to serve the interests of all South Africans – has a duty to facilitate all such peaceful protests. It is thus the duty of police officers to serve the interests of a democratic state – not the interests of the government of the day (who may be led by either the ANC or by Fifa – we are not sure at the moment which one). It may well be that limited policing resources will allow the imposition of more restrictions on marches and demonstrations during the world cup period, but it would not – I repeat NOT – allow any police officer to ban any march that is going to be peaceful and is not going to present a huge disruption to traffic.
So if you have a gripe and you want to demonstrate or march, get those applications in as soon as possible. If the police refuse to grant permission for the march, well, we can make sommer a very big stink.
Pierre, just to let you know: We will shortly be organising a march to the Union Buildings to demand that our envoy be recalled from Washington in protest both at Obama’s continuing incineration of Pakistani women and children, and now his blocking of UN action against Israel’s massacre at sea.
Thanks.
No doubt you are close enough to the truth. Interestingly this Botha-like tendency to use the security forces for things other than those contemplated in the Constitution has now extended to the president’s family matters. According to the below report regarding allegation of infidelity in the first family(s), the police and intelligence agencies are investigating the source of the allegations. On what basis are they acting in this manner, there is no suggestion that a crime has been committed.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article486636.ece/Zumas-second-wife-in-cheating-furore
Vuyo, if the report is correct that the “intelligence services and the police” is now involved in this case, it would be a scandal of enormous proportions as the intelligence services would then be involved in a domestic dispute (albeit one with potential political consequences) and would not possibly fall within its legal mandate. The intelligence services is NOT there to protect the President against scandals relating to his private life and if they are involved it would constitute a grave abuse of power.
Pierre,
Firstly, you are speculating: on your own words, the state of affairs is merely based on reports i.e. hear say. Secondly, you’re over-dramatising the situation: the state has not invoked any „state of emergency“ yet (it has merely „prohibited“ gatherings during a specific period, the prohibition which does not have to amount to the state having invoked some form of „state of emergency“ – which in my terms of definition is usually invoked by any state in situations of national lawlessness or catastrophes). So to this end, your speculations and postulations of the „if-forms“ are paranoid, if not unfounded. Thirdly, the world media attention will not only be fixed on the World Cup for the next few weeks. It has already been fixed on SA for the last year or so. Why suddenly wait until the last minute to want to „draw attention“ to grievances? When construction workers of the stadia felt aggrieved, did they wait until the last minute to make their grievances known. On the contrary, they did so way at the beginning. Your so-called call for freedom of assembly is anachronistic, opportunistic and not very credible. Assuming there were no ban or „declared state of emergency“, who is going to give a demonstrating group of opportunists some form of credibility at this point in time anyway?
Andy, your post make no sense whatsoever. You are saying that people have no right to demonstrate during the world cup, that they should have done so before and hence that banning all demonstrations during the world cup is no big deal. This seems like a rather shocking view, completely out of sync with human rights values. You also ignore the fact that there is NO legal basis for a ban. Any purported ban is therefore illegal.
Pierre,
I am not saying that people do not have the right to demonstrate during the World Cup. What I’m saying in this regard is that the state has not declared any factual state of emergency as purported by you (as opposed to my understanding of what or when a state of emergency is generally invoked!). Furthermore, when demonstrating, timing is is exceptionally important to give credence or credibility to one’s demands. What I am saying in this regard is: if people had wanted to demonstrate (with or without any form of “state of emergency”), then certainly not during the World Cup: a time when their demands will least be heard and be given any serious consideration, if at all. To have gained any form of credibility of anyone’s demand/s, they should have done it way before the World Cup (like the construction workers did and when they were heard(!).
http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2010-06-04-fifa-the-real-master-of-the-universe-gets-its-claws-into-sa-justice-system
We are indeed stadig maar seker becoming a Police State, arent we?
Friday evening, and all of your regular contributors Prof, are likely partying, hopefully with their loved ones, or else their bodyguard, pity I’m not young any more. Ce la vie.
I see Prof, that the decision has come down against the DA regarding the ANCyl self serving, politically ignorant, cynical, and to be honest, bullshit media seeking Malema wannabe triple B’s, re their self serving advantageous complaint about shit, toilets that is.
This situation typifies the difference between developed countries and developing countries, especially in OUR developing country which is relatively or significantly backward in relation to ethics and personal responsibility. Poor Helen, that she would fail to recognize that a community would actually co-operate to improve their reality without eventually slamming her, well, to be honest 97% did and even that is a surprise, possibly promising. The 3% who didn’t would be SURPRISING to anyone working regularly in these communities. I mean, really, what percentage of any community are drunks, drug addicts, abusers and toxic malcontents? Actually a level of 10 to 20% is more likely representative of who would not bother to co-operate or put up coverings for the toilet given to them, and sewage development is expensive. How many recognize that a shack is built in a day. Laziness and care less incompetence come to mind. You might have this same percentage in any poor white community as well, having no incentive for whatever reasons.. So perhaps there is some promise there that 97% did go for it, the co-operative thing, which after all is not just reasonable, but obvious: pity the emphasis is not on those who complied, rather on the hell raising thugs, manipulators and those who have personal special political interests who demand unjustified attention.
In my own activities I simply refuse to work with these types, the so called community leaders, or with any government department for that matter. It is so completely a waste of time, frustrating beyond belief, and soul destroying. Idiots, self interested idiots with no care whatsoever of the damage they do (to their own people, no less).
What a farce this decision is. I hope the DA appeals. For those many, and many of us whites who work daily in these communities, its all so typical. Those who are suffering are their own worst enemies. However, I do fear I’m becoming more conservative with each year I live here. That’s possibly damaging to who I am. I forget what cartoon it was, so famous in the west for so many years, but I always remember it. It goes thus: “I met the enemy, and it is me”. I think I’m losing hope for this glorious country and about to embark on a Lao Tzu. You can’t help those who won’t help themselves.
Meanwhile, the mountains, the majority of all the mixes of our various peoples, the blue skies, our glorious South Africa which remains amazing and most importantly, both fulfilling and spiritually uplifting for those open to it.
If confused by my comments: google Lao Tzu..
As for today’s faulty decision, it’s entirely political and short sighted, to say the very least.
How about looking at it as a de facto state of emergency, Andy?
Sirjay, have you seen one person calling for Andile to be charged with oh, public violence? Sedition? Intimidation?
@sirjay
http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm
Another thing that peeves me is hearing those fat chicks from Freshly Ground singing Haka Kaka all the time. Previous World Cup anthems were pretty impressive. All the talent the Lord gave Shakira and she makes noise. How about ‘Ave Maria’, Shakira?
I nominate ‘Can I have a bigger T-Shirt’ for World Cup anthem.
Maggs, let me hasten to add that in no manner shape or form must my previous post be seen as an invitation to do business – particularly not as an order for a T-shirt.
I was referring to Bennies song.
This “ban” makes me “lus” to organize a protest march, just for the hell of it! Just to get up FIFA’s nose. I missed out on all the protesting stuff when I was young, so maybe now would be a good time. Anyone out there willing to defend a stupid 60 year housewife?
@Andy – if I understand you correctly, you are saying that now is a bad time to raise a grievance because NOBODY will show interest, as they are all busy with the WC. On the contrary, the whole world is watching, so those the protest is focusing on are likely to be very concerned at the unwanted attention.
@Brett – a caller to Cape Talk Radio nominated the Wimpy Song in the advert as the WC anthem. It’s as good as anything else. Maybe this is a cause for which I could march.
Odd indeed is all this angst from certain of Noam Chomsky’s anti-American cultist, ventriloquist dummies who have travelled far down the path of fanaticism and the conviction that a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal is really a Great Satan—an empire built on slavery and dedicated to oppression and imperial conquest.
Just reading some of the articles over the weekend re promises made to FIFA for hosting the World Cup, I started questioning the process/procedures followed by our govt in acceding to some of these demands. In particular, have due administrative processes been followed in all cases where by-laws and law amendments have been implemented by municipalities, provincial & national governments? For example, allowing for public comment/consultation in all cases before enacting the various by-laws, amendments and/or special legislation?
If not, then all these laws are technically not applicable (null & void?) and things such as exclusion zones around stadiums, bypassing existing exchange controls for FIFA (allowing clear paths for money laundering for the next month?), exemptions to income tax and other taxes, blankett indemnity to FIFA, possibly denying South Africans access to health care since facilities must be available for the World Cup, etc. are actually illegal? If this is the case, how could businesses & individuals adversely impacted by these laws seek redress/restitution for loss of business/trade from govt and/or FIFA?
[...] und Weiterführendes:South African Civil Society Information CenterPierre de Voss – Constitutionally SpeakingWilliam Saunderson-Meyer – Thought leaderDavid Le [...]
[...] Links: Fifa World Cup: Feel it, it is here (then shut up) [...]
[...] World Cup 2010 is here, feel it then shut up!:Great confusion reigns about directives issued by someone in the South African Police Services to a [...]
Great to see all the bright colours, great opening ceremony, but, during the game, the constant blaring of the horns sounds like bees droning continuously for 90 minutes +. Is there a way to block the background noise of “the bees” for television viewers?
[...] Constitutionally Speaking [...]
[...] Constitutionally Speaking [...]
@Gwebecimele – “Brazil agreed on Thursday to exempt FIFA and its partners from taxes for any goods and services related to the 2014 Soccer World Cup”
Seems like this is one of the thing they always do. There was an article on the CityPress at http://www.citypress.co.za/SouthAfrica/News/Fifas-great-SA-ripoff-20100606
The article vanished since it was place (wonder why)
I capture an excerpt from it before they took it off and it said:
” A senior government official said: “Fifa are a bunch of thugs. Not even the UN expects you to sign away your tax base. These mafiosos do.”
The South African Revenue Service (Sars) has been forced to accede to an extraordinary “tax bubble” around “Fifa-designated sites” which exempts Fifa, its subsidiaries and foreign football associations from paying income tax, customs duties and value-added tax (VAT).
As a consequence South Africa, which has already spent R63 billion, will stand to lose tens or possibly hundreds of millions of rand in potential revenue.
According to a document compiled by SARS, by the end of April R613 million worth of goods had been imported into South Africa for the tournament. Rebates of R118 million were paid out on those imports in line with special tax measures for the World Cup.
The National Treasury says it is unable to provide estimates of the amount of foreign currency brought into and taken out of SA, but said one of the guarantees was “unrestricted import and export”.
Some of Fifa’s commercial affiliates, licensees, host broadcasters, broadcast rights agencies, merchandise partners and service providers will not pay taxes on the profits they make during the World Cup. But VAT will be paid on ticket sales and foreign-based soccer players will be taxed on income they receive for playing in the tournament.”
Just how much are FIFA paying for leasing South Africa for a month?
http://www.thestar.co.za/?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=iol1278668075962S226
and
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=3268&fArticleId=iol1278651080630S361
‘Fifa jet among airport hogs’
9 July 2010, 10:55
By Nompumelelo Magwaza and Tony Carnie
A jet carrying senior Fifa officials to the Durban semi-final is believed to be among the King Shaka International Airport planes that refused to make space for other aircraft on Wednesday night.
The Airports Company South Africa (Acsa) has refused to name and shame the aircraft owners and pilots who allegedly refused to honour a prior agreement to move to the old Durban International Airport after dropping off passengers at King Shaka.
However, Acsa’s Bongiwe Pityi confirmed on Thursday that the company planned to levy significant fines on the owners of at least seven aircraft.
She said airport managers had held meetings with some of the pilots, but they refused to relocate.
“We had an option to tow these aircraft, but we could not because we might have ended up damaging them,” she said.
Aviation sources told our sister paper The Mercury that a jet carrying Fifa officials was among the aircraft whose pilots refused to move.
“The crew of the Fifa plane was asked to move out of King Shaka, but the crew quite correctly refused to leave without the prior agreement of the Fifa delegation.”
•This article was originally published on page 1 of The Star on July 09, 2010
German fan in court after ‘assaulting crew’
9 July 2010, 09:44
A German soccer tourist is due in court on Friday for allegedly assaulting a cabin crew member when his plane did not make it to the World Cup semifinal, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said.
“He is alleged to have assaulted a cabin crew member on landing in Port Elizabeth,” NPA spokesman Mthunzi Mhaga told Sapa.
The man, Jorg Mardos, was on an SA Airways flight bound for Durban when the plane had to turn back from landing at King Shaka International Airport during the chaos on Wednesday.
The man was arrested on landing in Port Elizabeth and later granted bail.
The case was remanded until Friday so the man could arrange legal representation.
“He is to be charged with assault.
“The state also has to secure the attendance of the complainant and the witness,” said Mhaga. – Sapa