Blind SA has turned to the Pretoria High Court to break a delivery deadlock that has kept South Africa’s blind and visually impaired readers locked out of the world’s largest digital libraries for years. The organisation is suing trade and industry minister Parks Tau, arguing that the machinery needed to join the Marrakesh Treaty already exists in law, and that his department’s continued waiting amounts to an unlawful and irrational failure to act.
At the heart of the dispute is a question of execution: what must actually be in place before the government can accede to the treaty, and who is responsible for moving the process forward. Tau’s position is that South Africa cannot join until the Copyright Amendment Bill is enacted and in force. Blind SA, represented by SECTION27, counters that the Constitutional Court has already made the existing Copyright Act compliant by reading in a new accessibility provision, so the minister can proceed now.
The Marrakesh Visually Impaired Persons (VIP) Treaty, adopted in 2013 and in force since 2016, allows cross-border access to published works in accessible formats for people who are blind or visually impaired. The largest digital libraries are based in the United States, which is a party to the treaty. Until South Africa formally accedes, readers here cannot use them.
Blind SA’s chief executive, Votelwa Majola, laid out the mechanics in her affidavit. The treaty requires parties to ensure their national copyright laws enable access to accessible format libraries, she said, but there is a catch: for a person in one country to reach a title in a digital library in another, both countries must be party to the treaty. South Africa is not, despite the government having long stated its intention to accede.
The relief Blind SA seeks is operational. It wants the court to order the minister to develop a reasonable plan, within one month of the order, ensuring the matter is speedily tabled before the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. The minister, for his part, has until the end of this week to file the record of the reasons for his decision not to accede, along with any notice of intention to oppose the case.
The legal groundwork, according to Blind SA, was laid in stages. 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, referring it instead to the Constitutional Court. Blind SA then brought an urgent application, which produced a May 2025 court order reading section 19D into the original Copyright Act, an arrangement that remains valid until the amendment act comes into force. The reading in provides for specified copyright exceptions and safeguards against misuse, particularly in international transfers. In June this year, the court ruled on the President’s referral, striking down five unrelated subsections and upholding the rest.
Majola said the court was silent on the next steps. “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. Given the extensive consultation Parliament has already conducted, and the Constitutional Court’s findings, she argued the minister should reintroduce the amendment bill with all of its current provisions except the five invalid subsections. 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 correspondence trail shows where the process stalled. In June 2026, Tau responded to Blind SA, saying the department had been advised to adhere to the legislative process so that South Africa could meet its international obligations. Legal opinion from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and the Department of International Relations and Co-operation was 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 asking him to reconsider. No substantive response followed.
Majola described Tau’s decision as resting on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the law, making it unlawful and irrational and grounds for the court to review and set it aside. She said there was 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, she said, it cannot, without accession to the treaty, deal decisively with the book famine. Practically, she acknowledged, it makes sense for the state to have its legislative ducks in a row, but the treaty does not require it, given the reading in of section 19D.
Whether the court agrees that the machinery is already in place, or sides with the minister’s insistence on completing the legislative process first, will determine how much longer South Africa’s blind readers must wait.