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

In a unanimous ruling, the court annulled the relevant section of the South African Citizenship Act, stating it has been null since its introduction in October 1995. Consequently, individuals impacted by this are now recognized as having retained their citizenship.

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

The respondents, which include the Minister and Director-General of Home Affairs, have been instructed to cover the costs associated with the application.

This case was initially brought forward by the Democratic Alliance (DA). The party first lost its appeal in the Pretoria High Court, which ruled the section to be neither irrational nor a violation of constitutional rights. However, later success was achieved in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

The issue was ultimately taken to the ConCourt for confirmation of the SCA’s decision on unconstitutionality, which both the Minister and the DG consented to.

Justice Steven Majiedt, representing the ConCourt, highlighted the case of Phillip Plaatjes, a chartered accountant born in Cape Town, who supported the application after losing his South African citizenship due to the provisions of the Act.

Plaatjes departed South Africa in November 2002 to teach English in South Korea, intending only a temporary stay. While overseas, he married a British citizen.

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

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

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

The DA stated 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 contended this represented a violation of the right to citizenship without justifiable reasoning. The respondents initially contested the application in both the Pretoria High Court and the SCA.

They argued that the affected individuals had “voluntarily” relinquished their citizenship and claimed that such individuals could apply for dual citizenship permission from the Minister.

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

Additionally, the SCA found this treatment unfairly distinguished between South Africans with dual citizenship and those aspiring to obtain it.

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

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

“Loss of citizenship carries serious consequences. It means being regarded as a foreigner. When the law automatically terminates citizenship without prior notice or knowledge as a result of dual citizenship, it fundamentally deprives a person of their citizenship,” he stated.

He underscored that all laws must conform to the Constitution and noted that the respondents failed to demonstrate any valid justification for the contested section.

Furthermore, the section lacked specific criteria for how the Minister’s discretion ought to be applied.

“The Minister is given unfettered discretion to decide whether to permit dual citizenship,” Justice Majiedt stated.

He concluded that the SCA’s rationale was sound, and Plaatjes’ case “vividly illustrated” the irrationality of the section, marking it as 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 invalidation taking effect from October 1995.

© 2025 GroundUp. This article was first published here.

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