Durban High Court hears police bid to restrict March and March protests

The application seeks to restrain the March and March movement and its leaders from marching and from assaulting or intimidating public officials and members of the public.

Police told the Durban High Court that officers were being outnumbered at repeated demonstrations by large crowds of protestors as they made an application to restrain the March and March movement.

IOL reported that police told the court they needed to take pre-emptive action to prevent further violence and lawlessness.

Advocate Nalini Govender, representing the Minister of Police and the KwaZulu-Natal provincial commissioner, argued on Friday that reactive policing had become ineffective as the applicants seek an urgent interdict against the movement and its leaders.

The application seeks to restrain the March and March movement and its leaders from marching and from assaulting or intimidating public officials and members of the public.

Govender told the court that the decision to approach the High Court was prompted by the ineffectiveness of deploying police to respond to and disperse unruly crowds after violence had already erupted.

“Rubber bullets and tear gas discharged during this reaction cannot undo the damage done,” she said.

Judge Peter Olsen questioned why police did not disarm protesters and arrest those carrying weapons, pointing out that being armed during such a gathering was an offence.

“The marchers don’t seem to understand that,” he remarked.

Govender said managing the crowds remained difficult despite the substantial deployment of police officers.

“Seemingly the police are outnumbered and need pre-emptive action,” she said.

Olsen also asked whether there had been any further notices to march, as the documents before the court referred to a notice covering demonstrations until December 2025.

Govender pointed out that there was also a notice for October 2026.

She said police resources were already stretched ahead of the elections and that the continued reactive response to the demonstrations was depleting those resources.

Govender further argued that the marches were directed at foreign nationals but were also affecting ordinary members of the public.

“Ordinary citizens are subjected to perpetual fear when these marches happen. Smaller businesses can’t survive this, hence this urgent application,” she said.

She said participants in the demonstrations relied on section 17 of the Constitution, which guarantees everyone the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, demonstrate, picket and present petitions.

“This is not what we have seen in the CBD. There is lawlessness and chaos,” Govender said.

She argued that participants carried weapons and engaged in violence, conduct which, she said, placed them outside the protection of section 17.

As Olsen listened to Govender's submissions, he sought clarity on the relief the applicants were asking the court to grant. He questioned what permanent relief they intended to pursue after the interim order, pointing out that this had not been set out in their papers.

The matter subsequently stood down for Govender to take instructions on the issue.

The respondents are yet to present their arguments.