Judgment No. CCZ 9/18 Civil Appeal No. CCZ 5/18 Once having found that the provisions of s 27 of POSA have the effect of imposing greater restrictions than are necessary to achieve their purpose, the High Court ought to have found the provision unconstitutional without qualification. It is the blanket or dragnet effect of the ban that is permissible under s 27 of POSA that taints the whole provision. It matters not that the ban may be limited both geographically and in terms of time, a blanket or dragnet ban is neither fair, reasonable nor necessary. It is irrational. Whilst this is not germane to the answering of the question before the court, the concession by counsel and the finding by the High Court that the limitation was excessive and therefore not necessary, suggests that the respondents ought to have come up with other less restrictive measures to ensure that the right to demonstrate and petition peacefully was fully given effect to in circumstances where the exercise of these rights did not violate the rights of others. As discussed above, the respondents contend that the purpose of the limitation was to assist the first respondent to police and contain violent demonstrations in the future, based on previous experiences. To this extent, the limitation was in my view misplaced. The right that the Constitution guarantees is the right to demonstrate and to present petitions peacefully. The limitation was therefore not only inappropriate but unnecessary to contain and police peaceful demonstrations and petitions. Having found that the limitation in s 27 of POSA is not fair, reasonable or necessary, I have not been able to find any other basis upon which it can be justified. 16