Mkhwanazi clamps down on March and March after Durban violence

Ask AI 6minKwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi and Acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia have secured a reported interim court interdict against March and March following violent protests in Durban, amid police intelligence warning of an alleged plot to burn down a Home Affairs refugee centre.

KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi and Acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia have secured an interim court interdict against the March and March Movement following weeks of violent anti-immigration protests in Durban, amid police intelligence warning of an alleged plot to burn down the Department of Home Affairs Refugee Reception Centre.

The legal action comes after protests in the city were marred by the killing of a foreign national, the torching of vehicles, looting and attacks on businesses, raising fears of further violence and possible retaliation.

The interim interdict was granted on Wednesday, October 28 and remains in place until Friday, October 30, when the Durban High Court is expected to consider whether the restrictions should be made final.

Mkhwanazi and Cachalia approached the court seeking urgent intervention to prevent further unrest and protect residents, businesses and public infrastructure.

The application, filed under case number 2026-266812 in the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court in Durban, identifies the Minister of Police as the first applicant and the provincial police commissioner as the second applicant.

The application follows escalating tensions between members of March and March, foreign nationals and law enforcement officers in Durban.

According to the court papers, police received intelligence about an alleged plan to set fire to the Home Affairs Refugee Reception Centre on Che Guevara Road, formerly Moore Road, in Berea.

Brigadier Thamsanqa Gama, whose founding affidavit supports the application, warned of an immediate threat to lives, personal safety and public order in Durban and the wider province.

Police also raised concerns about the possibility of retaliatory violence following the killing of a foreign national during recent unrest.

The latest developments follow weeks of violent protests that left vehicles burnt and businesses damaged.

IOL previously reported that 14 vehicles were set alight and about a dozen shops damaged during protests in Durban’s central business district.

Police also opened a murder investigation after a Ugandan man was assaulted and stabbed during unrest on Dr Pixley kaSeme Street.

KwaZulu-Natal police spokesperson Colonel Robert Netshiunda previously said two men allegedly broke away from a group of marchers and approached the victim before he was assaulted by several people.

The motive for the killing had not been established at the time, and police were pursuing leads to identify those responsible.

The urgent application names March and March as the first respondent, followed by its leader, Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, and five other individuals.

They are Xolani Zuma, Mthokozisi Gumede, also identified in the papers as Felimtwini, Nozibusiso Khambule, Lindani Xulu and Uyama Mthembu.

The eThekwini Municipality, the executive head of the eThekwini Municipal Police Services and the Minister of Home Affairs are also cited as respondents.

The applicants invoked Uniform Rule 6(12), which allows urgent applications to be heard outside the ordinary court timetable.

They sought a rule nisi requiring the respondents to show cause why the proposed restrictions should not be confirmed.

The application seeks to prevent the movement and named individuals from convening, organising, directing, mobilising or participating in marches, processions, protest convoys and encampments in specified areas of eThekwini.

The proposed restrictions extend across the municipality, with particular emphasis on the Durban CBD, Che Guevara Road and the area surrounding the Home Affairs Refugee Reception Centre.

The notice of motion also seeks orders prohibiting the respondents from committing, directing, encouraging or assisting in acts of violence and intimidation.

These include threatening, assaulting, intimidating or harassing residents, business owners, traders, employees, delivery drivers, motorists and public officials.

The applicants further want the court to prohibit looting, arson and damage to homes, vehicles, commercial stock, business premises and public buildings.

Specific protection is sought for the Home Affairs Refugee Reception Centre, including an order preventing any attempt to attack or set fire to the facility.

The proposed restrictions also cover forcing businesses to close, preventing deliveries, compelling people to abandon their premises and blocking entrances or exits to buildings.

Police want to prevent protesters from using threats or intimidation to deny people reasonable access to public and private premises, including Home Affairs offices.

The precise terms of the interim order granted on Wednesday have not yet been independently verified against the signed court document.

The legal intervention follows a series of demonstrations by March and March, which has campaigned against illegal immigration and demanded stronger enforcement of South Africa’s immigration laws.

The movement’s activities have increasingly centred on the Home Affairs Refugee Reception Centre, where asylum seekers and refugees have gathered to seek assistance with their documentation.

On October 6, March and March protesters blocked access to the centre, disrupting services as asylum seekers, including women and children, waited outside.

The confrontation followed a Constitutional Court ruling concerning access to the asylum system for people who entered South Africa irregularly or failed to apply for protection within prescribed timeframes.

The ruling prompted Home Affairs to implement measures allowing people who present themselves at refugee reception offices and indicate an intention to seek asylum to have their applications received.

However, the measures also placed pressure on the department’s processing facilities.

The government subsequently acknowledged unintended consequences arising from the implementation of the ruling, including increased demand and capacity constraints.

Protests intensified in the days that followed.

IOL reported that vehicles were set alight as demonstrations spread through Durban, while some protesters carried sticks and confronted businesses.

The unrest also affected trading in the CBD, where shop owners closed their businesses amid fears of further violence.

Several March and March members have also faced criminal charges arising from earlier demonstrations.

Three members, Wandile “Method” Nsibande, Sphelele Magolide Shinga and Malizo Dzanibe, were arrested on October 10 and subsequently faced charges including incitement to commit public violence and public violence.

Ngobese-Zuma has criticised the legal action, accusing the government of attempting to suppress the movement’s constitutional right to protest.

In a social media statement on Wednesday, she called on supporters to stand with March and March against the police minister and President Cyril Ramaphosa, accusing them of abusing state power.

“Support us against the minister of police and the president that are abusing power and using the courts to strip us of our democratic right to protest in a democratic country,” she said.

The movement’s national spokesperson, Sandile Dube, also criticised the application, describing it as an attempt by the government to silence public grievances days before the November 4 local government elections.

Ngobese-Zuma confirmed that the movement intended to attend Friday’s court proceedings.

Her response follows Tuesday’s demonstration in Durban, when March and March members marched from the refugee reception centre towards Berea police station to hand over a memorandum.

The memorandum raised concerns about immigration enforcement, corruption, employment opportunities, business practices and the regulation of e-hailing services.

The movement called for stronger policing, transparent recruitment practices and improved economic opportunities for South Africans.

The dispute raises questions about the balance between the constitutional right to protest and the state’s responsibility to protect lives, property and public order.

Section 17 of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to assemble, demonstrate, picket and present petitions, provided they do so peacefully and without weapons.

However, that right does not protect violence, intimidation, arson or attacks on people and property.

The scope of the restrictions sought by police, particularly those affecting marches and protest activity across eThekwini, is likely to be an important issue when the matter returns to court.

The court will have to consider the evidence presented by police, the movement’s response and whether the proposed restrictions are justified.

The matter is scheduled to return to the Durban High Court on Friday, October 30, at 10am.