If in fact this was an incident of thuggish behaviour coming from a section of the APRC supporters, then the best course of action, in my opinion is to ignore them altogether and let them burn themselves out, and not seek to engage them in any way, unless they have been burning, looting, or causing specific threats, or harm to the laws of the land, as opposed to merely behaving, generally, in unlawful fashion. May be they are being coached and directed from afar, or want to give that impression. After all, nothing – absolutely nothing – brings people stronger together than perceptions of a common enemy. It’s better therefore that the police just follow from a safe distance and avoid any confrontation and to act swiftly and decisively only when life, limb, or property is threatened, and not to present themselves as the common enemy, and hopefully the rally will pass without incident as the highly parochial mind that accompanies such rallies both leads to superstition about the police as enemies and boredom because of the narrow focus, such that any action by the police in fact re-energises and refocuses the crowd because now there is an identifiable enemy (and in the same uniform that used to inspire them to into self righteous behaviour).
This should be followed by serious discussion with the leadership of all political parties as part of their registration process. Firm action that will be taken irrespective of the hue of the political party will be laid down as part of the registration process, and in the interest of public, private interests and national security. For now probably a national temporary ban on political rally for, say 180 days can be justified as giving the new incoming government the time and space needed to begin implementing its policies. Such ban will apply, unless a political party and its leadership agree to jointly and severally assume liabilities for any security costs arising as a direct consequence of rallies they hold. This will include cost of police presence, potential harm to life, limb, and property. For these an insurance cover from a recognised insurance company will be needed, or if self insurance and acceptable letter of credit from a bank. This should apply to all political parties. And in addition normal criminal and civil liabilities for property damage, assault, battery or personal injury should apply.
Obviously in such a case, the more law abiding the political party, the less the insurance bill. And there should be very little or no liabilities in common law for damages of any kind, because the leadership has an incentive to keep things within proper ambit of the law, rules and regulations for holding political rallies.
And with the police following at a safe distance being remunerated partly (variable costs of preparing and attending political rallies to keep the peace) from the funds of the rally organisers and partly (fixed costs -pensions etc) from the state, each party now has an incentive to hold an orderly, peaceful, democratic and injury free political rally, with little, or no costly arrests, custody battles, or processing through the courts with all the associated bad blood that come with it.
And since these minor skirmishes of political rallies by “hot head” from political parties of all hues will not go away, and have the potential to derail a government’s commitment to human rights and justices, more sophisticated methods are needed to deal with potential fall outs from political gatherings of any kind, including reallocating of throwing all potential public and private liabilities matters back to the political party and its leadership, and the best way to do this is to make them fully liable to bear all,cost directly from rallies, and to take prior insurance, or have a letter of credit from a reputable bank who has agreed to cover all potential adverse costs of the parties rallies.
And of course, everyone, political party member of not continue to be liable for any loss arising from personal their personal actions or inaction under common law provisions.