Judgment No. CCZ 9/18 Civil Appeal No. CCZ 5/18 I would therefore venture to suggest that s 86 (2) simply gives the court an array of some of the factors to take into account before it comes up with what is essentially a value judgment. The list given is not exhaustive as the law enjoins the court to take into account all relevant factors including the ones that it spells out. Thus, the court must be holistic both in its approach and in its finding. I now turn to assess the limitation under the four specific heads mentioned in s 86(2). IS S 27 OF POSA FAIR, REASONABLE, NECESSARY AND JUSTIFIABLE IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY BASED ON OPENNESS, JUSTICE, HUMAN DIGNITY, EQUALITY AND FREEDOM? As stated above, s 27 of POSA grants wide power to the regulating authority to ban all or a class of public demonstrations for a period lasting up to one month. The ban imposed is blanket in nature and has a dragnet effect. During the currency of the ban, the rights to demonstrate and to petition peacefully are completely nullified. This includes demonstrations already planned at the time the ban is imposed and those that are yet to be planned. This also includes mass demonstrations and small demonstrations. It includes demonstrations of all sizes and for whatever purpose without discrimination. Like a blanket or a dragnet, it covers or catches them all. To the extent that the ban does not discriminate between known and yet to be planned demonstrations, the limitation in s 27 has the effect of denying the rights in advance and condemning all demonstrations and petitions before their purpose or nature is known. It 14