Mutumwa Dziva Mawere v Registrar General and Others

The applicant was born in Bindura, Zimbabwe on 11 January 1960 to parents who were also born in Zimbabwe. On 10 July 2002, he acquired South African citizenship by registration. In 2013, when attempting to register as a voter for scheduled national elections, he approached the Registrar-General's office to obtain a duplicate national identity document (having lost the original). He was advised that as long as he remained a South African citizen, he would not be eligible for a Zimbabwean national identity document. Prior to the enactment of the new Constitution on 22 May 2013, Zimbabwean law prohibited dual citizenship and required renunciation of foreign citizenship. The applicant sought a declaration that, as a citizen by birth under the new Constitution, he was entitled to dual citizenship and should not be required to renounce his South African citizenship before being issued a Zimbabwean national identity document.

• Whether a person born in Zimbabwe to Zimbabwean parents (a citizen by birth under section 36(1) of the Constitution) is entitled to dual citizenship under the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013
• Whether the applicant was required to renounce his foreign-acquired citizenship before being issued with a Zimbabwean national identity document
• Whether citizenship by birth acquired under section 36(1) of the Constitution can be revoked by the State
• The proper interpretation of sections 36, 39, 42 and 43 of Chapter 3 of the Constitution relating to citizenship
• Whether a person who had lost citizenship under the old constitutional dispensation needed to perform formal acts to have citizenship restored under the new Constitution

The Court ordered that: (1) The applicant, Mutumwa Dziva Mawere, born 11 January 1960, is a citizen of Zimbabwe by birth in terms of Section 36(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013; (2) The first respondent is interdicted from demanding that the applicant first renounce his foreign-acquired citizenship before being issued with a national identity document; (3) The first respondent is directed to issue the applicant with a national registration document forthwith and in any event before the voter registration process being conducted by the second respondent in terms of Section 6(3) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution is concluded; (4) The first respondent to pay the costs of the application.

A person born in Zimbabwe to a Zimbabwean parent is a citizen of Zimbabwe by birth under section 36(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe Amendment (No. 20) Act 2013, and such citizenship exists by operation of law without requiring any further action. Citizenship by birth under section 36(1) cannot be revoked by the State under any circumstances, as section 39 (which provides for revocation of citizenship) does not apply to such citizenship. Dual citizenship is constitutionally permissible for citizens by birth, as section 42(e) only empowers Parliament to prohibit dual citizenship in respect of citizens by descent or registration, not citizens by birth. A citizen by birth is not required to renounce foreign-acquired citizenship in order to be issued with a Zimbabwean national identity document or to enjoy the rights and benefits of Zimbabwean citizenship. All provisions of Chapter 3 of the Constitution must be read together, and any legislation enacted under section 42 must be consistent with Chapter 3 and cannot derogate from rights conferred therein.

The Court provided guidance on constitutional interpretation principles applicable in Zimbabwe, citing with approval authorities from Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia emphasizing that constitutions must be interpreted broadly, liberally and purposively while respecting the language used. The Court observed that section 43(1) is a savings provision intended to ensure continuity of citizenship for all persons who enjoyed any type of citizenship before 22 May 2013. The Court noted that section 42(d) contemplates situations where citizenship may be lost (through revocation under section 39, voluntary renunciation under section 42(b), or prohibition of dual citizenship under section 42(e)) and provides for restoration procedures, but this does not apply to citizenship by birth which cannot be lost. The Court's analysis suggests that future legislation under section 42 must complement rather than override other provisions of Chapter 3.

This landmark case is the first Constitutional Court interpretation of citizenship provisions under Zimbabwe's 2013 Constitution. It established that dual citizenship is constitutionally protected for citizens by birth, marking a fundamental shift from the previous constitutional dispensation which prohibited dual citizenship. The judgment clarified that citizenship by birth under section 36(1) exists by operation of law and cannot be revoked by the State, providing security to Zimbabwean citizens by birth who acquire foreign citizenship. The case demonstrates the Constitutional Court's approach to interpreting the new Constitution broadly and purposively while respecting textual language, and establishes important precedent on the hierarchy and interaction of citizenship provisions in Chapter 3 of the Constitution. It has practical significance for Zimbabwean diaspora and their participation in democratic processes, as it enabled citizens by birth with dual citizenship to register to vote and participate in elections.