Zimbabwe’s Constitutional Court on Wednesday nullified a law which allows the country’s police to authorize protests as it could be abused or misused by state machinery.

By this position, the court has outlawed section 27 of the Public Order and Security Act (POSA). This effectively means that Zimbabwean citizens could protest without police clearance.

A full bench of the court led by Justice Rita Makarau which handed down the judgment cited issues of lack of fairness and lack of scope by the regulatory body as core basis for the ruling.

“In addition to failing to pass the test on fairness, necessity and reasonableness, there is another feature of section 27 of POSA that I find disturbing. It has no time frame or limitation as to the number of times the regulating authority can invoke the powers granted to him or her under the section.

“Thus, a despotic regulating authority could lawfully invoke these powers without end. This could be achieved by publishing notices prohibiting demonstrations back-to-back as long as each time the period of the ban is for one month or less.

“It thus, has the potential of negating or nullifying the rights not only completely, but perpetually. On the basis of the foregoing, it is my finding that section 27 of the Public Order and Security Act (Chapter 11:17) is unconstitutional,” Justice Makarau said.

Section 27 of POSA stipulates that: “Temporary prohibition of holding public demonstrations within particular police districts can be made if a regulating authority for any area believes on reasonable grounds that there might be public disorder.”

Until the landmark judgment, the Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) had to be contacted in case any group planned protests anywhere within its the jurisdiction.

The ZRP also had to be notified with respect to giving security to persons and easing the instance of social disruption by protesters.

Civil society organizations and opposition parties in the country which have been at the forefront of calls for a repeal of the law took the case to the court in May.

However, the enforcement of the judgment has been suspended for a period of six months to allow for relevant authorities in the case to duly amend the said law if they are so inclined.

“It is just and equitable in my view that the second and third respondents (Police Commissioner-General and Home Affairs Minister) be allowed time to attend to the defects in section 27 of the Public Order and Security Act if they are so inclined.

“The question referred to this court by the Supreme Court is answered as follows: ‘Section 27 of the Public Order and Security Act is unconstitutional.

“The declaration of constitutional invalidity of section 27 of the Public Order and Security Act is suspended for six months from the date of this judgment. The matter is referred to the Supreme Court for the determination of the appeal. Each party shall bear its own costs,” she added.