The Steve Tshwete Local Municipality in Middelburg has come under fire from a local mining company for allegedly failing to prevent unlawful gatherings that disrupted their business operations and endangered public safety.
The allegations are detailed in court documents filed by Liberty Coal in the Mpumalanga High Court. And the matter was due to be heard on Tuesday. However, the court ruled it was not urgent and could be heard on a normal court roll.
The applicants claim that the municipality did not adequately enforce the prohibition of gatherings that were disapproved due to non-compliance with the Regulation of Gatherings Act.
SAPS members ignored violation
In particular, they allege that despite the municipality’s formal disapproval of a gathering proposed for January 20, 2026, an assembly exceeding 15 persons still took place outside Liberty Mine Services’ premises, obstructing entrances and disrupting operations.
“Our clients have proof which evidence that entrances to the premises were obstructed. And that members of the SAPS from Public Order SAPS were indeed present,” the applicants stated in their correspondence to the municipality. They further alleged that the gathering was not spontaneous. It occurred on the exact date for which the municipality had previously refused an application.
The applicants also highlighted breaches of conditions during a prior gathering on January 13, 2026, which had been approved by the municipality. According to the applicants, “certain participants carried firearms, including high-calibre semi-automatic weapons, concealed their faces with balaclavas, and obstructed access to the premises”.
They argued that the municipality failed to enforce the conditions outlined in its approval letter. The letter prohibited weapons, balaclavas, and interference with the operations of Liberty Coal.
In response, the municipality filed a Notice to Abide with the court. It stated that it does not oppose the relief sought by the applicants and defers to the court’s decision.
Municipality says its role is limited
The municipality clarified its role under the Gatherings Act. And it emphasised that its involvement is “administrative and facilitative in nature”. It is limited to coordination, engagement with conveners, and implementing reasonable measures for public safety and order.
“The municipality does not organise, encourage, authorise, or endorse protests or gatherings initiated by community members,” stated Stanley Mandla Mnguni, the municipal manager and seventh respondent, in his affidavit. He further explained that the municipality’s citation in the proceedings arises “purely from its regulatory oversight role and not from any active conduct giving rise to the relief sought”.
The municipality also defended its actions. It stated that it had disapproved the January 20 gathering due to non-compliance with the Gatherings Act.
“The committee can unfortunately not consider your notice to hold a public gathering on January 20, 2026. As the application received does not comply,” the municipality stated in its disapproval notice.
Despite these measures, the applicants argue that the municipality’s failure to prevent the gatherings and enforce conditions has exposed their operations to significant risks.
“Participants in the previous gathering unlawfully entered the mining right area of our client, Liberty Coal. Liberty Coal is subject to strict statutory obligations under the Mine Health and Safety Act 29 of 1996. Unauthorised entry exposes our client and the public to significant risk and may result in criminal liability,” the applicants stated.
‘We do not adjudicate disputes’
The municipality, however, maintained that it has acted within its constitutional and statutory mandate. And that it does not have a direct or substantial interest in the dispute between the applicants and the protestors.
“The municipality does not adjudicate disputes between private parties concerning protest action. It intervenes only where there is a credible threat to public safety, essential services, or municipal infrastructure. And then solely to the extent permitted by law,” Mnguni stated.
The court is expected to determine whether the municipality fulfilled its obligations under the Gatherings Act and the Constitution. Or whether its actions contributed to the applicants’ grievances. The municipality has pledged to comply fully with any lawful order granted by the court.
