Recent incidents involving protesters entering business premises, confronting owners and employees, and disrupting operations have placed renewed focus on private property rights, workplace safety and the legal responsibilities of protesters and organisers.
While South Africa’s Constitution protects the right to peaceful assembly and protest, legal experts caution that this right does not extend to trespassing, intimidation, obstructing business operations or taking enforcement into private hands.
Attorney Aishvarya Singh, director of Aish Singh & Associates, said both protesters and businesses are protected under the Constitution, but those rights must be exercised within the boundaries of the law.
“It is important to distinguish between disruption caused by the mere existence of a lawful protest, which may have to be tolerated to some extent in a constitutional democracy, and disruption arising from unlawful conduct. Businesses are not expected to tolerate illegal acts simply because they occur in the context of a protest. The constitutional protection afforded to peaceful protest does not shield participants from the legal consequences of unlawful behaviour,” Singh said.
Businesses affected by unlawful conduct may request that protesters leave private premises and, if they refuse, seek assistance from SAPS. They may also pursue legal remedies, including urgent court applications and claims for damages where losses have been suffered.
Addressing concerns around foreign nationals working in South Africa, Singh said employers must comply with immigration and labour laws.
“South African law does not prohibit the employment of foreign nationals. However, employers are required to ensure that any foreign employee is lawfully entitled to work in South Africa and that they comply with the provisions of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002, together with all applicable labour legislation. Employers who knowingly employ individuals who are not authorised to work in South Africa may face criminal sanctions and other legal consequences,” she said.
However, Singh stressed that immigration enforcement falls under state authorities.
“Complaints should be reported to the Department of Home Affairs, which has the statutory authority to investigate immigration compliance, or to the Department of Employment and Labour where there are concerns regarding employment law compliance,” she said.
SAPS has also encouraged members of the public who suspect contraventions of immigration or labour legislation to report such information through the correct channels. Reports can be made by calling the SAPS Crime Stop number on 08600 10111 or by visiting the nearest police station.
According to SAPS, information received will be assessed and, where necessary, investigated together with relevant government departments, including the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Employment and Labour.
SAPS said while members of the public have the right to raise concerns and engage in peaceful, lawful protest, no person may enter private property without the permission of the owner or lawful authority. Enforcement action on private property remains the responsibility of authorised law enforcement officials acting within the scope of the law.
Property owners who experience unlawful entry, intimidation or any criminal conduct are advised to contact SAPS immediately so that appropriate action can be taken.
Labour law considerations also arise where protesters demand that businesses dismiss foreign employees or replace them with South African workers. Employers cannot retrench or dismiss employees simply because of their nationality, as this may amount to unfair discrimination and could expose the business to labour disputes.
Retrenchments must be based on genuine operational requirements, such as financial pressures, restructuring, technological changes or other recognised business reasons. They cannot be used as a response to pressure from protest groups or as a way to target employees because they are foreign nationals.
Foreign employees, including those whose immigration status may be in question, may still have protections under South African labour law once they are employed. If a business dismisses workers unlawfully, the matter may be referred to the relevant bargaining council or the CCMA, where the employer could face an unfair dismissal claim.
Businesses are also placed in a difficult position if they have employed foreign nationals without valid work authorisation. While employers are required to comply with immigration laws, they cannot simply ignore labour protections once an employment relationship exists.
Any action taken must be handled lawfully, fairly and through the proper legal channels.
Singh added that protest groups and members of the public are not legally entitled to enter private premises, demand employment records, remove workers, force dismissals or compel businesses to close.
“Such conduct falls outside the constitutional protection afforded to peaceful protest and may constitute offences such as trespassing, intimidation, assault, malicious damage to property or public violence, depending on the circumstances,” Singh said.
Singh further clarified that SAPS cannot arrest a business owner solely based on allegations made by a protest group or individual.
“An arrest must be based on a lawful ground recognised in South African law, and the arresting officer must have the requisite legal basis, such as a warrant, or a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Allegations made by protesters, without proper investigation or lawful grounds, are insufficient to justify an arrest.
If there are concerns regarding immigration or employment law compliance, those allegations must first be investigated by the relevant authorities, and any enforcement action must be taken in accordance with the law,” Singh said.
SAPS said it remains committed to enforcing the law impartially while balancing the constitutional rights of all parties and ensuring that investigations are conducted fairly and in accordance with South African legislation.
For businesses facing potential threats, Singh said legal protection is available through urgent court relief where there is evidence of unlawful conduct.
“An interdict cannot prohibit a lawful protest merely because it is inconvenient, but it can restrain unlawful conduct such as trespassing, intimidation, violence, obstruction or damage to property,” she said.
Singh advised businesses to document incidents through CCTV footage, photographs, videos and witness statements, while cautioning against confrontation.
“Business owners should avoid taking matters into their own hands. Attempting to forcibly remove protesters or engaging in confrontation may expose the business to unnecessary legal risk,” she said.
The broader message, Singh said, is that while communities have the right to raise concerns, enforcement must remain in the hands of the law.
“The right to protest is a fundamental constitutional right, but it is not an unlimited one. Equally, businesses have lawful rights that deserve protection.”
