Court may have emboldened EFF in action against Clicks
The court's decision to dismiss Clicks' application to interdict the EFF from disrupting their business may have been an error of law, according to legal experts, who question whether the right to protest could trump the business' right to property.
Members of the EFF protest outside the Clicks store in Mall of Africa, 7 September 2020, Midrand. The party has called for a total shutdown of all Clicks stores after a racist advert was shared on social media. Picture: Jacques Nelles
The High Court’s dismissal of Clicks’ application to interdict EFF’s planned protest at their stores was “inexplicable” as the ruling might be an error which instead “emboldened” the red-berets, according to legal experts.
The EFF’s shutdown of Clicks stores across the country, in protest of a racial hair advert turned violent in various shopping centres on Monday, with some stores even being petrol-bombed and vandalised.
Many of the company’s more than 800 stores were locked and prevented from operating for the entire day, while Clicks’ attempt to interdict the protest was dismissed with costs by the High Court.
The full judgment is yet to be published, but the decision is inexplicable and a possible error, says legal expert advocate Paul Hoffman SC.
“I haven’t seen the judgment. If it was dismissed for want of urgency, which is often done in that court, I think that was an error on the part of the judge, because the matter is of an urgent nature. If the interdict had been obtained and served on the EFF, it might have called off its fighters, instead of which they have been emboldened by the dismissal of the application and have run amok.”
While EFF leader Julius Malema said he had called for a peaceful gathering, this was contradictory to his remarks on Twitter where he encouraged his followers to “attack”, Hoffman said.
“He called for an attack. You don’t attack peacefully, it’s a contradiction.”
While the Constitution recognises the right to assemble, demonstrate and peacefully picket and unarmed, it should not trump anyone’s dignity for their property, attorney Ulrich Roux said.
“They do have the right to protest. But your right to protest does not trump the right to restore the owners’ respect and dignity for their property. You can’t think that now you have this right to protest that you have a right to damage property as well and physically assault people.
“Yes, you have a right to gather, but there is lawful and unlawful protests. The minute you make yourself guilty of any unlawful act, then your right to protest is immediately taken away,” said Roux.
rorisangk@citizen.co.za
For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.
For more news your way
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
