In a move that has sent ripples across democratic nations, the government of New South Wales (NSW) in Australia is seeking what its own leader calls “extraordinary powers” to effectively ban protests for up to three months. The announcement came directly from Premier Chris Minns, who controversially linked recent pro-Palestine demonstrations to a tragic terror attack in Bondi that claimed 15 lives.

This development in Australia raises critical questions for Kenyans, as the nation frequently navigates the delicate balance between state security and constitutional freedoms. The proposed NSW law seeks to empower the police minister to restrict public assemblies in designated areas following a terror incident, a decision that could not be challenged in court. This stands in stark contrast to Kenya's own constitutional guarantees.

A Chilling Precedent?

Premier Minns was unequivocal in his reasoning, telling reporters the state “can’t risk another mass demonstration on that scale.” He argued that the “implications” of large-scale protests could be seen in the Bondi attack, a claim that activist groups have labelled “outrageous” and divisive. The proposed legislation would allow the police commissioner, with the consent of the police minister, to declare a protest ban for an initial 14-day period, which can be extended for up to three months.

Civil liberties advocates have sounded the alarm. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties condemned the proposed powers as far too broad, stating that “the banning of protests will not stop antisemitism.” Critics warn that conflating peaceful assembly with terrorism is a dangerous path that could erode fundamental democratic rights.

The Kenyan Context: A Cherished Right Under Scrutiny

The situation in NSW offers a sharp lens through which to view Kenya's own legal landscape. The 2010 Constitution, under Article 37, explicitly grants every person the right to assemble, demonstrate, and picket, provided they do so “peaceably and unarmed.” This right is a cornerstone of Kenya's democracy, frequently exercised to hold public authorities accountable.

However, this right is not absolute and is regulated by laws like the Public Order Act, which requires organizers to notify the police of planned gatherings. In recent years, Kenya has seen its own debates around restricting this freedom. Proposed amendments to the Public Order Act have sought to create protest-free zones around sensitive areas like Parliament and State House, sparking concern from civil society that the government is attempting to curtail dissent.

Key features of the proposed NSW law include:

• Power for the police minister to declare specific areas as off-limits for public assemblies.
• A ban lasting for an initial 14 days, extendable up to three months.
• No oversight or right of appeal through the court system.
• The justification is to prevent the stretching of police resources and to avoid inflaming community tensions after a terror attack.

As authorities in NSW argue for these measures in the name of public safety, observers in Nairobi and beyond will be watching closely. The debate pits the state's duty to protect its citizens against the fundamental right of those same citizens to voice their dissent. For Kenya, it serves as a potent reminder of the constant vigilance required to protect hard-won democratic freedoms.