Dismissing Clicks’ court bid queried
EMBOLDENED: PARTY MEMBERS RUN AMOK - ADVOCATE
Leader Julius Malema calls on Twitter for an attack, legal expert says.
The high court’s dismissal of Clicks’ application to interdict the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) from protesting at its stores was “inexplicable” as the ruling might be an error which instead “emboldened” the red berets, say analysts.
The EFF’s planned shutdown of Clicks’ stores across the country to protest against a racial hair advert turned violent in various shopping centres, with stores petrol-bombed and vandalised. Many other of the party’s 800 targeted outlets were locked and prevented from operating.
This was after Clicks’ attempt to interdict the protests was dismissed in court with costs. The judgment was yet to be published.
But the decision was inexplicable and a possible error, said legal expert advocate Paul Hoffman.
“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 urgent.
“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.”
Party leader Julius Malema said he had called for a peaceful gathering, but this contradicted his remarks on Twitter where he encouraged 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 unarmed, it should not trump anyone’s respect for their property, legal expert Ulrich Roux said.
“The 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 a right to protest that you have a right to damage property and physically assault people.
“The minute you make yourself guilty of any unlawful act, your right to protest is taken away.” –