Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (CCT 184/23) [2025] ZACC 8 (6 May 2025)
REPORTABILITY SCORE: 96/100 Citizenship — Constitutional validity — Section 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act 88 of 1995 — Automatic loss of citizenship upon voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship — Democratic Alliance challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing it infringes the right to citizenship without consent or forewarning — Supreme Court of Appeal declared the provision unconstitutional and invalid from its promulgation — Constitutional Court confirmed the order, declaring that citizens who lost citizenship under the provision are deemed not to have lost it.
Case Note
Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs and Another
CCT 184/23
[2025] ZACC 8
Date Decided: 06 May 2025
Reportability
This case is reportable due to its significant implications for citizenship rights in South Africa. The Constitutional Court's ruling addresses the constitutionality of section 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act 88 of 1995, which automatically revokes citizenship for South Africans who voluntarily acquire citizenship in another country. The decision confirms the Supreme Court of Appeal's declaration of constitutional invalidity, thereby impacting the legal status of numerous citizens who lost their citizenship under this provision.
Cases Cited
The judgment references several key cases, including: - Chisuse v Director-General of Home Affairs [2020] ZACC 20 - Phillips v Director of Public Prosecutions [2003] ZACC 1 - Democratic Alliance v Minister of Home Affairs [2023] ZASCA 97
Legislation Cited
The relevant legislation cited in the judgment includes: - South African Citizenship Act 88 of 1995
Rules of Court Cited
The judgment refers to: - Rule 16 of the Constitutional Court's Rules
HEADNOTE
Summary
The Constitutional Court confirmed the Supreme Court of Appeal's order declaring section 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act unconstitutional. This provision, which led to the automatic loss of citizenship for South Africans acquiring foreign citizenship, was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution. The court ruled that those who lost their citizenship under this provision are deemed to have retained it.
Key Issues
The key legal issues addressed in this case include: - The constitutionality of section 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act. - The implications of automatic loss of citizenship on individual rights. - The legal status of citizens who lost their citizenship under the impugned provision.
Held
The court held that section 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act is unconstitutional and invalid from its promulgation date. It further declared that individuals who lost their citizenship due to this provision are considered to have never lost it.
THE FACTS
The Democratic Alliance (DA) challenged the constitutionality of section 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act, which automatically revokes citizenship for South Africans who voluntarily acquire foreign citizenship without prior permission. The Supreme Court of Appeal had previously declared this provision unconstitutional, prompting the DA to seek confirmation from the Constitutional Court. The case highlighted the experiences of individuals, such as Mr. Phillip Plaatjes, who unknowingly lost their citizenship due to this provision, illustrating the real-world impact of the law.
THE ISSUES
The court had to decide whether section 6(1)(a) of the South African Citizenship Act was unconstitutional and whether the declaration of invalidity should be confirmed. The legal questions revolved around the rights of citizens and the implications of losing citizenship automatically upon acquiring foreign nationality.
ANALYSIS
The court's reasoning centered on the fundamental nature of citizenship as a gateway to various constitutional rights, including freedom of movement and political representation. The judgment emphasized that the automatic loss of citizenship infringes on individual rights and fails to align with constitutional principles. The court considered international human rights standards and the implications of dual citizenship, ultimately concluding that the impugned provision was inconsistent with the Constitution.
REMEDY
The court confirmed the Supreme Court of Appeal's order, declaring section 6(1)(a) unconstitutional and invalid from its inception. It also ordered that individuals who lost their citizenship under this provision are deemed to have retained it. Additionally, the respondents were ordered to pay the applicant's costs, including the costs of two counsel where applicable.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The key legal principles established in this case include the recognition of citizenship as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. The judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that laws governing citizenship do not infringe upon individual rights and highlights the necessity for legislative provisions to align with constitutional values. The court's ruling sets a precedent for the treatment of citizenship in South Africa, particularly concerning dual citizenship and the rights of citizens abroad.