Historic Ruling by the Constitutional Court on South African Citizenship

The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) has determined that a law that automatically revokes South African citizenship from individuals obtaining citizenship from another country is unconstitutional.

In a unanimous ruling, the court declared the relevant section of the South African Citizenship Act null and void since its implementation in October 1995. Consequently, individuals affected are now recognized as having not lost their citizenship.

Read: Supreme Court of Appeal welcomes back lost citizens [June 2023]

The respondents, including the Minister and Director-General of Home Affairs, are required to bear the costs of the application.

This case was initiated by the Democratic Alliance (DA), which initially lost its challenge in the Pretoria High Court, where it was found that the section was neither irrational nor a breach of constitutional rights. However, they later achieved success in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

The matter ultimately reached the ConCourt to confirm the SCA’s ruling on unconstitutionality, to which both the Minister and the DG consented.

Justice Steven Majiedt, representing the ConCourt, mentioned that Phillip Plaatjes, a chartered accountant born in Cape Town, supported the application after he lost his South African citizenship due to the provisions of the Act.

Plaatjes left South Africa in November 2002 to teach English in South Korea, not intending to stay away indefinitely. While abroad, he married a British citizen.

The couple lived in the United Kingdom, where Plaatjes was naturalized as a UK citizen in 2007 through marriage. He believed he would now possess “dual citizenship,” but when he attempted to renew his expired South African passport at the embassy in London seven years later, he was informed that he had lost his South African citizenship.

Justice Majiedt recounted that Plaatjes received his passport back, with corners cut and the words “cancelled” stamped across the pages, alongside a letter stating that he had voluntarily acted to lose his citizenship. Nevertheless, he retained permanent residency status.

“He describes this as one of the saddest days of his life, as he wished to retain his South African citizenship,” Justice Majiedt noted.

The DA indicated it pursued the court application to safeguard South Africans abroad “who acquired a second citizenship in good faith,” emphasizing that the automatic loss of citizenship occurred without their knowledge.

The DA argued this represented a violation of the right to citizenship without justifiable explanation. The respondents initially opposed the application in the Pretoria High Court and the SCA.

They claimed that the section affected those who had “voluntarily” given up their citizenship and asserted that such individuals could seek dual citizenship permission from the Minister.

After the High Court dismissed the application, the SCA ruled that the relevant section of the Act was arbitrary and irrational, determining that individuals seeking citizenship in another country should not automatically lose their South African citizenship.

Furthermore, the SCA found that this treatment unfairly distinguished between South Africans with dual citizenship and those seeking it.

Moreover, the SCA concluded that the Act’s section unjustifiably limited political rights, the right to enter and remain in South Africa, as well as the rights to trade, occupy, and practice a profession.

Justice Majiedt emphasized that citizenship is a “cherished” right that should not be easily revoked.

“Loss of citizenship carries severe consequences. It results in being perceived as a foreigner. When the law automatically cancels citizenship without prior warning or knowledge due to dual citizenship, it fundamentally deprives an individual of their citizenship,” he stated.

He noted that all laws must comply with the Constitution and asserted that the respondents failed to demonstrate any legitimate purpose for the contested section.

Additionally, the section lacked clear criteria for how the Minister’s discretion should be exercised.

“The Minister is given unrestricted authority to decide at her discretion whether to permit dual citizenship,” Justice Majiedt remarked.

He concluded that the SCA’s reasoning was sound, and Plaatjes’ situation poignantly illustrated the section’s irrationality, labeling it a constitutional anomaly.

He pointed out that the Act was established in October 1995 under the interim constitution and continued under the current constitution, rendering it invalid under both, with the declaration of invalidity effective from October 1995.

© 2025 GroundUp. This article was first published here.

Follow Moneyweb’s in-depth finance and business news on WhatsApp here.