Blind and visually impaired South Africans remain locked out of the world’s largest digital libraries because their government has not joined an international treaty designed for them, and now the organisation representing them is asking a court to force the issue.
Blind SA has taken Trade and Industry Minister Parks Tau to court over his failure to accede to the Marrakesh Treaty, the agreement that allows cross-border access to published works in accessible formats for people who are blind or visually impaired. Represented by SECTION27, the organisation wants the Pretoria High Court to order the minister to develop a reasonable plan, within one month of any court order, ensuring the matter is speedily tabled before the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces.
The stakes are concrete and daily. The biggest digital libraries serving blind readers are based in the United States, which is a party to the treaty. South Africans cannot use them until the government formally accedes. As Blind SA’s CEO, Votelwa Majola, explained in her affidavit, the treaty requires parties to ensure their national copyright laws enable access to accessible format libraries. “But there is a catch,” she said. “In order for a person in one part of the world to be able to access a title in a digital library in another country, both countries must be party to the Marrakesh VIP Treaty.”
The treaty was adopted in 2013 and came into force in 2016. South Africa has long signalled its intention to join, but the minister has maintained that accession cannot happen until the Copyright Amendment Bill, which amends the existing Copyright Act, is enacted and in force. Blind SA disputes this, arguing the existing act has already been appropriately amended by the Constitutional Court to comply with the treaty, pending enactment of the bill.
The legal history matters here. In 2022, the Constitutional Court declared the Copyright Act unconstitutional because it failed to provide accessibility for blind people. Parliament passed the Copyright Amendment Bill in 2024, adding section 19D to ensure accessibility, but President Cyril Ramaphosa did not sign it into law, instead referring it to the Constitutional Court. Blind SA then brought an urgent application, which led to a May 2025 court order reading section 19D into the original Copyright Act. That reading-in remains valid until the amendment act comes into force. Section 19D provides for specified copyright exceptions and safeguards against misuse, particularly in international transfers.
In June this year, the Constitutional Court ruled on the President’s referral, striking down five unrelated subsections and upholding the rest. Majola noted the court was silent on what steps should follow. “It must follow that the ball is back in the Minister’s court, awaiting a decision as to what will be tabled in the National Assembly, and by when,” she said.
In her view, given the extensive consultation process Parliament has already conducted, as well as the Constitutional Court’s findings, the minister should reintroduce the amendment bill with all of its current provisions except for the five subsections declared invalid. But waiting for the bill would be time-consuming and would leave blind and visually impaired people in limbo, denied access to literary and artistic works in accessible formats.
Meanwhile, the dispute over legal advice has been running for some time. In June 2026, Minister Tau responded to correspondence from Blind SA, saying the department had been advised to adhere to the legislative process so that South Africa could meet its international obligations. He cited legal opinion from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Department of International Relations and Co-operation holding that the amendment bill needed to be enacted and in force before accession. Blind SA’s attorneys wrote back saying he had been wrongly advised and asked him to reconsider. No substantive response was received.
Majola argues there is an urgent need to end rights violations that have lasted almost a decade. While the apex court’s reading-in of section 19D was a landmark development, it cannot, without accession to the treaty, deal decisively with what she calls the book famine. It may make practical sense for the state to have its legislative ducks in a row, she said, but the treaty does not require it, given the reading-in of section 19D. In her assessment, Tau’s decision rests on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the law, making it unlawful and irrational and providing grounds for the court to review and set it aside.
The minister now has until the end of this week to file the record of his reasons for not acceding to the treaty, along with any notice of intention to oppose the case. Whether the court agrees that accession can proceed without the bill will determine how soon blind readers gain entry to those libraries.