The Security Logic Behind Defining a Public Gathering as “Three or More People”.
By Hon Sunday Chanda
————————————————————————
“Under UK law, a “public assembly” is generally defined as a gathering of two or more persons in a public place.”
————————————————————————
Contrary to some political misconceptions, the definition of a public gathering or crowd as “three or more persons” is neither unusual nor unique to Zambia. Comparable legal frameworks exist in other democratic jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom under the Public Order Act 1986, as amended by subsequent legislation such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023.
Under UK law, a “public assembly” is generally defined as a gathering of two or more persons in a public place. Notably, this threshold was reduced from twenty persons to two persons in 2003, reflecting the modern reality that even small gatherings can have significant public order and security implications. Recent reforms in the UK have gone even further by extending certain public order controls to one-person protests in specific circumstances.
The UK framework also applies varying numerical thresholds depending on the nature of the activity or offence:
- A public assembly may consist of two or more persons;
- A public procession may involve any number of persons;
- Violent disorder may arise where three or more persons act together violently;
- A riot requires twelve or more persons acting together for a common purpose using or threatening violence.
The logic behind this measure is simple: modern public order management is not determined solely by the size of a gathering, but by the potential impact of collective activity in public spaces.
In this regard, the threshold of “three or more persons” under Zambia’s Public Gathering Bill is both practical and reasonable from a security and public order perspective. Even a small group acting collectively in a public place can attract crowds, obstruct traffic or public movement, provoke counter-reactions, or rapidly escalate into a much larger assembly requiring coordination and policing.
Importantly, the purpose of the definition is preventative and facilitative rather than punitive. The threshold enables early communication and coordination between organisers and law enforcement authorities on matters relating to safety, traffic management, crowd control, and the protection of the rights of others.
Equally important is the fact that the law does not criminalise ordinary social interaction or casual meetings among citizens. The intention is to regulate organised assemblies, demonstrations, meetings, or processions conducted in public spaces where legitimate issues of public safety, order, and security may reasonably arise.
Retaining this threshold also promotes continuity, predictability, and operational clarity, particularly because similar standards have long existed in public order legislation and comparative jurisdictions. It allows law enforcement agencies, courts, organisers, and citizens to operate within a familiar and structured legal framework while balancing constitutional freedoms with legitimate security considerations.
Ultimately, the debate should not focus narrowly on numbers alone, but on whether the law strikes a fair and democratic balance between the constitutional right to assemble and the responsibility of the State to preserve public order and safety.
Kozo!