Long walk to copyright reform #10: South Africa's Copyright Amendment Bill has been referred to the Constitutional Court

Today (15 October 2024), South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa referred the Copyright Amendment Bill (CAB) and Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill (PPAB) to the Constitutional Court for a ruling on their constitutionality.

IPKat readers may recall this Kat's post at the time South Africa's Parliament passed the two bills again in March and transmitted them to the President for his assent (or referral to the Constitutional Court). The President's referral to the Constitutional Court could be taken as evidence that he is not convinced that the constitutional issues (incorrect tagging, possible retrospective and arbitrary deprivations of property, non-compliance with the 3-step test, ultra vires delegation of legislative authority to the Minister) he raised in the previous versions of the Bills were (adequately) addressed. By virtue of section 79 of the South African Constitution, a referral to the Constitutional Court is the appropriate step when the President decides that a Bill referred to Parliament has not fully accommodated his reservations. 


And now we will wait to see the referral documents to understand the reasons for the President's dissatisfaction with how his reservations were addressed and subsequently, for the ruling of the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the CAB and PPAB.

The long walk continues…

Long walk to copyright reform #10: South Africa's Copyright Amendment Bill has been referred to the Constitutional Court Long walk to copyright reform #10: South Africa's Copyright Amendment Bill has been referred to the Constitutional Court Reviewed by Chijioke Okorie on Tuesday, October 15, 2024 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.