The Constitutional Court considered a referral by the President about the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers' Protection Amendment Bill. It found the referral incompetent in respect of sections 6A, 7A and 8A as a whole, and held that some provisions were constitutional while section 12D(1) to (5) was unconstitutional. The Court also said the same orders apply to the relevant provisions of the Performers' Protection Amendment Bill.
This may be relevant to copyright, broadcasting, publishing and performers' rights stakeholders because it concerns the constitutionality of several bill provisions and the scope of the President's referral.
Evidence from source
The referral by the President in terms of section 79 of the Constitution in respect of sections 6A, 7A and 8A of the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2017 (CAB) as a whole is incompetent.
Supports: Summary claim that the Court found the referral incompetent for sections 6A, 7A and 8A.
The exceptions in subsections 12D(1)-(5) of the CAB constitute an arbitrary deprivation of property under section 25(1) of the Constitution and are unconstitutional.
Supports: Summary claim that section 12D(1) to (5) was held unconstitutional.
The orders in paragraphs 1-7 in relation to the CAB also apply to the relevant sections of the Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill, 2017.
Supports: Summary claim that the same orders apply to the Performers' Protection Amendment Bill.