Constitutional right of free assembly

The applicants, the Movement for Democratic Change, sought an order to set aside the decision by the 1st respondent, the officer commanding Bulawayo Central District Police, that sanctioned their demonstration. The applicants notified the 1st respondent of their intention to conduct a peaceful demonstration, but the 1st respondent had refused their application on three grounds:

The 1st respondent, the police officer commanding Harare District, issued a notice in terms of section 27(1) of the Public Order and Security Act [Chapter 11:07] (POSA) in terms of which he banned for a period the holding of all public processions and demonstrations in the Central Business District of Harare, for two weeks.

This application challenged the validity of the statutory instruments which held that all public processions and demonstrations were temporarily banned.

This was an appeal against the decision of the High Court stating that sections 5 and 6 of the Public Order Act, Cap 113 Laws of Zambia (POA) do not violate the constitutional provisions on freedom of expression and assembly.

The court determined whether the POA, as amended, was constitutional and addressed concerns raised by the court in the Mulundika judgment over unconstitutionality of the pre amended section 5(4). Second, whether the police were applying the provisions in the POA in a fair manner?