Judgment No. CCZ 9/18 Civil Appeal No. CCZ 5/18 most vivid ways of the public coming together to express an opinion in support of or in opposition to a position. Whilst protests and public demonstrations are largely regarded as a means of political engagement, not all protests and mass demonstrations are for political purposes. One can take judicial notice of, in the recent past, a number of public demonstrations that were not political but were on such cross cutting issues as the environment, and/or the rights of women and children. Long after the demonstrations, and long after the faces of the demonstrators are forgotten, the messages and the purposes of the demonstrations remain as a reminder of public outrage at, or condemnation or support of an issue or policy. Clearly, the right to demonstrate creates space for individuals to coalesce around an issue and speak with a voice that is louder than the individual voices of the demonstrators. As is intended, demonstrations bring visibility to issues of public concern more vividly than individually communicated complaints or compliments to public authorities. Demonstrations have thus become an acceptable platform of public engagement and a medium of communication on issues of a public nature in open societies based on justice and freedom. THE INFRINGEMENT It is beyond dispute that s 27 of POSA has the effect of infringing the rights granted by s 59 of the Constitution. The High Court correctly found so. One would venture to suggest that s 27 provides a classic example of a law whose effect infringes the fundamental rights in issue in this matter. The test to determine whether a law infringes a fundamental right was laid out by GUBBAY CJ in In re Mhunhumeso (supra) at page 62F as follows: “The test in determining whether an enactment infringes a fundamental freedom is to examine its effect and not its object or subject matter. If the effect of the 8