COPYRIGHT & PERFORMERS’ PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILLS: PRESIDENCY SILENT ON CONCOURT RULING

COPYRIGHT & PERFORMERS’ PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILLS: PRESIDENCY SILENT ON CONCOURT RULING

• 09 July 2026
• Justice & Constitutional Development
• SA Legal Academy

Two weeks have passed since the Constitutional Court handed down a ruling on the fate of the Copyright and Performers’ Protection Amendment Bills – yet there has been no reaction from national government or Parliament.

The judgment came just a few days short of 20 months after the Presidency issued a media statement announcing President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to refer the ‘F’ versions of both Bills to the Constitutional Court for a ruling on specific clauses. The decision came seven months after the Bills were passed by Parliament and sent to the President for signature.

It is customary for the national government department responsible for administering legislation affected by a Constitutional Court ruling to issue a brief media statement noting it. While such statements occasionally include a response to the ruling, more often than not a formal response is made only after the department concerned has thoroughly interrogated the ruling and its likely implications.

The 1978 Copyright Act and 1967 Performers’ Protection Act are administered by the Department of Trade, Industry & Competition – from whom the Constitutional Court ruling appears not to have elicited a peep.

The amendment Bills were developed by the National Assembly’s Trade & Industry Committee under the previous Parliament – in liaison with the department, whose tabled Bills were so deeply flawed they required a complete overhaul.

The Constitutional Court has ruled that – of the Copyright Amendment Bill clauses on which the President expressed reservations – only certain clause 18 provisions on ‘reproduction for educational and academic activities’ are unconstitutional. Inserting a new section 12D into the Act, 12D sub-sections (1) to (5) are the only provisions Parliament is now required to replace. According to the ruling, these provisions ‘constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property under section 25(1) of the Constitution and are unconstitutional’.

When the Bill is sent back to Parliament, the committees concerned will be required to deal only with these provisions – along with any in the Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill affected by them.

As a result, the mandatory parliamentary public participation process will be limited to those provisions.

At the time of writing, as stakeholders only the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the South African Guild of Actors (SAGA) and the Geneva-based Centre on Knowledge Governance had issued formal statements on the ruling. Spoor & Fisher appear to have been the only law firm to comment.

• Constitutional Court ruling
• Copyright Amendment Bill, ‘F’ version
• Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill, ‘F’ version
• Spoor & Fisher statement 
• SA Legal Academy reports on the President’s October 2024 referral:
  • 15 October 2024 report
  • 16 October 2024 report
• COSATU statement
• SAGA statement
• Centre on Knowledge Governance statement

Published by SA Legal Academy Policy Watch

Follow us on X @SALegalAcademy (you can also join us on LinkedIn and Facebook)

If you use this information in articles, reports and social media posts of your own, please acknowledge SA Legal Academy Policy Watch as your source

0 COMMENTS

LEAVE A COMMENT