Judgment No. CCZ 9/18 Civil Appeal No. CCZ 5/18 impugned law is to abridge a fundamental freedom, its object or subject matter will be irrelevant.” (The emphasis is not mine). Clearly, the effect of s 27 is to give wide discretion to a regulating authority to abridge the two rights. He or she can impose a blanket ban for up to one month if he or she believes on reasonable grounds that he will not be able to prevent violence from breaking out. During the currency of the ban, the two rights are completely negated. In my view, it matters not that the ban may be imposed only in relation to a class of demonstrations. The effect remains the same in relation to that class of demonstrations. They are all banned. This is regardless of the purpose, size or organisation of the demonstration. The ban has a dragnet effect and like most dragnets, it catches the big and the small, the innocent and the guilty. I shall revert to this point in greater detail below. Having come to the inescapable conclusion that s 27 of POSA infringes the rights guaranteed under s 59 of the Constitution, the next inquiry to make is whether the section can be saved under s 86 (2) of the Constitution or must be declared constitutionally invalid. The approach of the court Before I proceed to consider whether or not s 27 of POSA can be saved under s 86 (2) of the Constitution, I will briefly discuss the relationship between the general approach that a court takes in considering the constitutional validity of a challenged piece of legislation and the specific test that the court must apply as directed in s 86 (2) of the Constitution. I am detained in this regard as it appears that there may be some confusion as to whether or not the general approach that was laid out in case law prior to the enactment of the Constitution remains applicable in light of the express provisions of s 86 (2) of the Constitution. 9