In his letter to Parliament, President Cyril Ramaphosa said after considering the amendment bills, he had reservations on the constitutionality.
The Presidency has defended the decision by President Cyril Ramaphosa to refer the Copyright Amendment Bill and Performers’ Protection Amendment Bill to the Constitutional Court to determine their constitutionality.
On Wednesday, Ramaphosa indicated to the Constitutional Court his reservations about provisions in the legislation originally drafted and reconsidered by Parliament when he requested the apex court for a decision.
His action came after lobby group Section27 instituted an urgent application in the Constitutional Court against Ramaphosa for failing to sign the Copyright Amendment Bill.
Speaking to the media, Ramaphosa’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said they found the legal action by Section27 strange because the Constitution provided clear parameters in terms of the President’s responsibilities.
“There is a fair amount of work that has to be done before the President can either assent to the bill, refer it back to Parliament, or refer to the Constitutional Court as it is the case now.
“Before he exercises those options, he must thoroughly satisfy himself about the issues that are of concern about the bill itself.
“It is a little bizarre why anybody would want to compel him as if there is a set timeline in which he can exercise his authority in this regard,” Magwenya said.
He stated that there were about 40 bills sent to Ramaphosa between March and May that should be processed thoroughly.
“I am not quite sure how one reaches a conclusion that the President needs to be compelled to exercise his authority in this regard. How does he sign a bill that will be later found to be unconstitutional unless a fair amount of time has been spent going though that bill line by line?”
In his letter to Parliament, Ramaphosa said after considering the amendment bills, he had reservations on the constitutionality and referred them back to Parliament for reconsideration in June 2020.
“The amendment bills were incorrectly tagged as bills in terms of Section 75 of the Constitution, which do not affect the provinces, instead of being tagged as bills in terms of Section 76 of the Constitution, which affected the provinces.”
He also said the restrictions on the copyright imposed in the bill might constitute retrospective and arbitrary deprivations of property in breach of the constitution.
“I had also raised reservations about whether the amendment bills comply with South Africa’s international law obligations,” he said.
Although Parliament considered the bill and submitted them to him for consent earlier this year, the new bill did not fully accommodate his concerns.
“The same can be said of the provisions of the new Performers Protection Amendment Bill insofar as it compromises the afore-going provision of the Copyright Amendment Bill,” he said.
His communication to Parliament came as opposition parties raised concerns in the National Assembly programme committee about delays in the assenting of bills and others not being implemented pending formulation of regulations, such as the national Health Insurance Act.
They also wanted to know the status of the Basic Education Laws Amendment (Bela) Bill and answers regarding the suspended clauses in the pending consultation.
National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza said they would follow up with the Presidency to clarify the status of the Bela Bill.
Cape Times