Judgment No. CCZ 9/18 Civil Appeal No. CCZ 5/18 does not leave scope for limiting each demonstration according to its circumstances and only prohibiting those that deserve to be prohibited while allowing those that do not offend against some objective criteria set by the regulating authority to proceed. The limitation in s 27 of POSA stereotypes all demonstrations during the period of the ban and condemns them as being unworthy of protection. Stereotyping is a manifestation of bias without any reasonable basis for that bias. To the extent that the limitation in s 27 stereotypes all demonstrations during the period of the ban, it loses impartiality and becomes not only unfair but irrational. Counsel for the respondents conceded that the limitation in s 27 is excessive and is disproportionate to the purpose for which it is intended. This concession was well made. The excessive nature of the limitation has the effect that MALABA DCJ commented on in the Chimakure case of increasing the sphere of government control over the exercise of the right whilst decreasing the scope of the enjoyment of the right. In conceding that the limitation in s 27 is excessive, counsel was in essence conceding that the limitation exceeded its purpose and, to that extent, becomes an unreasonable reaction to a situation that can be managed by other and less restrictive means. In its judgment, the High Court also correctly found that the limitation in s 27 of POSA has the effect of imposing greater restrictions than are necessary to achieve its purpose. The High Court however felt that the law could be saved as its effect in this regard is limited “in terms of its duration and the restricted geographical area in which the ban may be imposed.” 15