FRANCE IN UNREST: PROTEST RIGHTS, POLICING AND PUBLIC ORDER, AND WHAT SOUTH AFRICA CAN LEARN

France is currently in the grip of its worst unrest in years. On 17 October 2026, an  estimated 550 000 people marched across the country. Demonstrations about the cost  of living, fuel prices and education funding were largely peaceful at first, then turned  into looting and arson, and reportedly left one police officer and one protester dead.  By 19 October, Paris police had banned gatherings and imposed a curfew in parts of  the capital, and the Prime Minister had not ruled out a state of emergency.

For South African readers this is more than foreign news. The questions France now  faces are ones our own courts, police and businesses have confronted: where does  the right to protest end, what powers may the State use to restore order, and who  bears the loss when a protest turns violent? This article summarises what has  happened and compares the French response with the South African legal position. 

How the protests unfolded 

The movement began with students. From 18 September 2026, high school students  started blockading schools over overcrowded classrooms, teacher shortages and  inequality. University students joined on 1 October, and by 5 October between 400 and  500 schools were partly or fully closed. It was reported that 24 schools had been  burned or ransacked. 

On 6 October the protests became a nationwide mobilisation of students, teachers,  parents and trade unions. Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu instructed his ministers  to address the students' main demands and to present initial proposals by the end of  October. 

The movement widened on 17 October, when trade unions, including the CGT, and  the Yellow Vests movement called a national day of action against the cost of living.  Students, teachers, firefighters, farmers and climate activists joined. The Interior  Ministry put turnout at about 550 000 nationwide, including 110 000 in Paris. The Prime  Minister said 1 200 people were arrested that day and 150 police officers were injured.  Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin later said more than 2 330 people were taken into  custody over the weekend. Protesters set fire to the town hall in Limoges, and in  Marseille dozens of shops were looted and a group broke into the city hall.

The government’s legal response 

President Emmanuel Macron addressed the nation on 18 October. He condemned the  violence, promised that rioters and looters would be prosecuted, and drew a line  between protesters with legitimate demands and those who destroyed and looted. He  stopped short of declaring a state of emergency or a national curfew. Instead, he said  prefects and mayors would be allowed to ban certain gatherings to protect public  buildings and businesses. He also ordered a review of whether there were failures in  intelligence gathering or police preparedness, and asked the government to bring  together students, teachers, lawmakers, unions and business leaders to produce  concrete proposals. 

Local measures followed within a day. Paris police issued orders banning gatherings  and demonstrations, and imposing a curfew, around the Place de la République and  the Les Halles shopping district. The Prime Minister said the government was ready  to impose a state of emergency if needed, and the interior minister said the police had  lost control during the weekend, despite some 60 000 officers being deployed on the  Saturday. 

A state of emergency is a significant step in France. It rests on a 1955 statute and lets  the executive impose curfews, restrict movement and conduct searches without prior  judicial approval. It was used in the 2005 riots, when regional officials gained power to  impose curfews on minors and search homes, and again from 2015 to 2017 after the  Paris attacks. The government also considered, but did not declare, one during the  Yellow Vests protests in December 2018. The present debate is therefore a familiar  one: how far the executive may go in restricting freedoms before a court or parliament  has a say. 

Policing and the use of force 

The unrest has also put the police under scrutiny. According to Interior Ministry figures  released on 13 October, France's police inspectorate had opened 36 investigations  into alleged police violence since the high school protests began. Human Rights Watch  reported that a 15-year-old lost a hand to a police stun grenade and a 14-year-old  suffered a shattered jaw after being struck by a tear gas canister fired at close range.  These are allegations, and they have not been tested in court.

The legal test is the same in most democracies. Force must be necessary,  proportionate and a last resort, and those who use it must be accountable. France is  bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of  assembly, and by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The UN  Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials set  the international benchmark for crowd control. Whether France's investigations and  any prosecutions meet that standard will be closely watched. 

The South African position 

South African law starts from a strong constitutional guarantee. Section 17 of the  Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 protects the right of everyone,  peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, demonstrate, picket and present petitions. The  Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 gives that right practical form. Organisers of  a gathering must generally give the local authority notice in advance. The  Constitutional Court held in Mlungwana and Others v The State and Others [2018]  ZACC 45 that criminalising a failure to give notice was unconstitutional, because it  unjustifiably limited the right. 

The Act also deals with the consequences of violence. Section 11 makes organisers  and the organisations behind a gathering liable for riot damage, subject to defences  that turn largely on whether they took reasonable steps to prevent it. The Constitutional Court dealt with this in South African Transport and Allied Workers Union v Garvis 2012 (6) SA 882 (CC). 

On policing, our starting point is the same as France's in that force must be necessary  and proportionate. The 2012 Marikana tragedy and the Farlam Commission that  followed remain the cautionary example for South African crowd management. 

On policing, our starting point is the same as France's: force must be necessary and  proportionate. The 2012 Marikana tragedy and the Farlam Commission that followed  remain the cautionary example for South African crowd management. 

The most striking difference is the state of emergency. Under section 37 of the  Constitution, a state of emergency may be declared only by an Act of Parliament, and  only when the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection,  disorder, natural disaster or another public emergency, and the declaration is  necessary to restore peace and order. It lapses after 21 days unless the National  Assembly extends it, and each extension is limited to three months. The Bill of Rights  may be limited only to the extent strictly required, and certain rights cannot be limited  at all. In the July 2021 unrest in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng, the government did not  use section 37 and deployed the South African National Defence Force instead. In  both countries the legislature decides whether an emergency continues. In South  Africa, though, the limits are written into the Constitution itself, including a list of rights  that cannot be limited. 

Practical lessons for South African clients 

The French events carry practical points for our clients, whatever their size. Organisers  should give notice under the Regulation of Gatherings Act, appoint marshals, record  the steps taken to keep the gathering peaceful, and keep those records. They are the  main evidence of the reasonable-steps defence if riot damage is claimed. For  employers, a worker's participation in a protest is not automatically protected. Protest  action to promote or defend workers' socio-economic interests must comply with  section 77 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, including prior notice. Employers  should have a clear policy on absence, safety and unprotected action before the next  march. 

Property owners, landlords, and body corporates should check what your insurance  covers. Standard commercial policies commonly exclude riot, strike and civil  commotion. Review force majeure clauses in leases and service contracts at the same  time. The common thread is preparation. The cost of an unrest usually falls on those  who did not plan for it. 

Conclusion 

France's unrest is still developing, and the next steps are the proposals the  government has promised by the end of October and any decision on a state of  emergency. What it already shows is how quickly a lawful protest can become a public  order crisis, and how quickly the debate turns to the limits on emergency powers.  South Africa's constitutional framework sets those limits in advance. Organisers,  employers, property owners and insurers would do well to plan with the same care.