The applicant was born in Zimbabwe on 15 May 1990 and obtained a passport in 2003 valid until 2013. In 2012, when the applicant approached the first respondent's offices to obtain a national identity document, the request was turned down. The first respondent alleged that they had obtained information about the applicant's father which suggested the father had fraudulently obtained Zimbabwean citizenship by registration, claiming to be Tanzanian when he was actually of Somali origin. Based on this alleged fraud by the applicant's father, the first respondent refused to issue the applicant with a national identity document and declined to renew his passport. The applicant sought a court order compelling the first respondent to issue him with a national identity document and passport.
1. The first respondent is ordered to issue the applicant with a national identity document within 48 hours of service of the order. 2. The first respondent shall replace the applicant's passport upon application and payment of the prescribed fee by the applicant. 3. The first respondent shall bear the costs of the application.
Where a person was born in Zimbabwe and at the time of birth at least one of their parents was a Zimbabwean citizen, that person enjoys citizenship by birth in terms of section 36(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013, and such citizenship cannot be revoked under any circumstances. Section 39(3) of the Constitution operates as an absolute bar to revocation of Zimbabwean citizenship if such revocation would render the person stateless. Citizenship by birth cannot be revoked based on alleged fraud or misrepresentation by a parent in obtaining their own citizenship, particularly where the person concerned is an adult citizen in their own right. Constitutional provisions relating to citizenship rights must be interpreted broadly and purposively to serve the interests of the Constitution and promote its purposes, with any derogations from such rights being construed narrowly or strictly.
The court observed that citizenship is a fundamental right and deprivation of that right should not be lightly resorted to as this would amount to an infringement of the supreme law of the country. The court noted that the respondent had adopted a "piecemeal interpretation" of constitutional provisions with an unacceptable result of depriving the applicant of citizenship lightly. The court commented that the respondent acted in a "heavy handed manner" and gave a "narrow interpretation" to the provisions of the Constitution, seeking to revoke the applicant's citizenship in "clear defiance" of section 39 of the Constitution. The court also noted that the alleged fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant's father was not substantiated or proved by evidence placed before the court, and that based on the court's own record (HH 25-2007), the respondent did not actually pursue revocation of the father's citizenship.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean constitutional law as it establishes important protections for citizenship by birth under the 2013 Constitution. It affirms that citizenship acquired by birth cannot be revoked based on alleged irregularities in a parent's acquisition of citizenship, particularly where such revocation would render the person stateless in violation of section 39(3) of the Constitution. The judgment reinforces that citizenship is a fundamental constitutional right that cannot be lightly deprived by administrative action, and that constitutional provisions relating to citizenship must be interpreted broadly and purposively rather than narrowly. It also clarifies that an adult citizen by birth stands in their own right and cannot have their citizenship status determined by the revocation of a parent's citizenship, unlike the position with minor children under section 12(1) of the Citizenship of Zimbabwe Act. The case is important in establishing limits on the state's power to revoke citizenship and protecting individuals from being rendered stateless.