Africa (Commonwealth Union) _ In a landmark decision, South Africa’s Constitutional Court has struck down a controversial provision of the Citizenship Act that had, for decades, silently stripped thousands of South Africans of their nationality upon acquiring foreign citizenship.
Justice Steven Majiedt, writing on behalf of a unanimous bench, declared Section 6(1)(a) of the Act “irrational and unconstitutional.” The provision, which came into effect in 1995, had automatically revoked South African citizenship from individuals who voluntarily became citizens of other countries unless they obtained prior consent from the Minister of Home Affairs.
The judgment restores citizenship to all affected individuals, retroactive to the law’s inception. Justice Majiedt emphasized that the automatic loss of nationality without the individual’s knowledge, consent, or right to appeal was an egregious violation of constitutional protections.
The case spotlighted the personal story of Phillip Plaatjes, a South African-born accountant who relocated to the UK and became a British citizen in 2007. Unaware of the legal trap, he only discovered he had lost his South African citizenship when his passport renewal request was rejected in 2015. His story, championed by the Democratic Alliance (DA), reflected the experience of countless others impacted without warning.
The Ministry of Home Affairs defended the law, claiming the loss was the result of voluntary actions. However, both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court rejected this reasoning. The courts found no legitimate governmental purpose for such an extreme penalty, particularly considering the Act’s recognition of dual citizenship elsewhere.
Crucially, the apex court ruled that allowing a minister unchecked discretion to decide who keeps their citizenship is incompatible with a constitutional democracy. The lack of clear criteria made the provision arbitrary and unjust.
The judgment sends a powerful message: citizenship, a gateway to other rights such as voting, freedom of movement, and employment, cannot be discarded at the whim of bureaucracy. In correcting a historical injustice, the court reaffirmed that the rights of citizens at home or abroad must be guarded with the utmost seriousness.
