The Constitutional Court has upheld the constitutional invalidity of a contentious provision in the South African Citizenship Act.
The judgment, delivered on 6 May 2025, concerns section 6(1)(a) of the Act, which mandated the automatic loss of South African citizenship for those who voluntarily acquired citizenship of another country without prior permission from the Minister of Home Affairs.
The court’s decision followed an appeal filed by the Democratic Alliance (DA), acting on behalf of numerous South Africans who unknowingly lost their dual citizenship upon acquiring foreign nationality. This ruling signal a pivotal moment in the legal landscape of dual citizenship in South Africa, intertwining issues of heritage, national identity, and individual rights.
The ruling stems from a case highlighting the experiences of citizens like Phillip Plaatjes, who was born in Cape Town and lived abroad for years. Plaatjes tragically discovered that he had lost his South African citizenship years after acquiring British nationality, a situation prevalent among many South Africans living overseas. His story, marked by shock and confusion, exposes the implications of the dual citizenship provision, which had stripped many of their rights without notice.
Judicial consensus: Why the law was struck down
The court consensus, led by Justice SA Majiedt, emphasised the profound significance of dual citizenship as a gateway to numerous rights, political representation, freedom of movement, and trade. It unequivocally declared that the automatic loss of citizenship, devoid of user knowledge or consent, is unconstitutional and undermines the fabric of individual rights articulated in the Constitution.
“Citizenship is not merely a legal status; it embodies a person’s identity and sense of belonging," stated Justice Majiedt, stressing the detrimental impact of automatic dual citizenship loss on private and family life, economic prospects, and participation in the political sphere.
The Supreme Court of Appeal had previously ruled against the provision, recognising that it operated arbitrarily by imposing a penalty, loss of dual citizenship, without just cause or procedural fairness.
The justices contended that the state’s outlined intention of regulating dual citizenship was flawed, lacking credible rationale or purpose in its execution. They underscored the arbitrary nature of the law, with many citizens affected unaware of the implications of their actions regarding dual citizenship.
Implications for national identity and citizenship rights
In its final order, the Constitutional Court affirmed that those who lost their dual citizenship under the invalidated provision are reinstated as citizens. Consequently, the government has been directed to cover the costs incurred by the DA.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel
