STATELESSNESS AND CITIZENSHIP IN THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY Table 7: Renunciation and reacquisition Renunciation Conditions applied COUNTRY Protection vs statelessness Reacquisition Relevant legal provisions Burundi By declaration Yes If lost because of dual nationality L2000 Arts30-32&38-41 Kenya By registration, Cabinet Secretary may withhold when Kenya is at war with another country, or if not in the interests of Kenya to do so Yes If lost because of dual nationality; on application L2011(2014) Secs10&19 Rwanda Shall inform Director-General; shall not compromise laws of Rwanda or for purpose of seeking refugee status Yes If deprived because of dual nationality, not if deprived as naturalised citizen or if expelled as security threat L2008 Arts18,22-24 South Sudan By presidential order No No provision L2011 Sec15 Tanzania By registration; Minister may withhold if during war or contrary to public policy No No provision L1995 Sec13 Uganda By registration; may be withheld if acquires nationality of country with which at war or contrary to public policy Yes If lost because of dual nationality and no adverse effect to public order and security L1999(2009) Secs19G&20 Most rules on reacquisition have exemptions for “exceptional circumstances”, which are not noted here. Procedures The differences among the six EAC Partner States are perhaps most marked in relation to the procedures relating to acquisition and deprivation of citizenship. The nationality codes of Rwanda and Burundi, in line with their civil law heritage, provide for questions related to nationality to be adjudicated by the courts and establish the procedures for such claims. In the Rwandan case, in a procedure that should be regarded as best practice, it is additionally provided that deprivation of nationality shall be decided by a court on application by the state prosecutor.51 In the three former British protectorates or colonies, by contrast, the executive discretion surrounding access to citizenship that historically existed in Britain has continued to provide the basic framing for the law. Only Uganda has moved somewhat away from this discretion, by establishing a Citizenship and Immigration Board that is responsible for registration and naturalisation; even so, the appeal from the Board’s decision is to the Minister, and only following this can subsequent appeals go to the High Court.52 Under the constitution, however, an application for judicial review could be made at any stage in relation to a decision that is unfair or unjust.53 In Kenya, the 2010 constitution and 2011 legislation provide greater due process protections than was previously the case—in particular by stating that the Cabinet Secretary’s decision to deprive a person of citizenship shall be reasoned and appealable to the High Court—but the basic framework remains highly discretionary. A proposal to establish a dedicated “Kenya Citizens and Foreign Nationals Management 22 51 Burundi Nationality Code 2000, Chapter VI; Rwanda Organic Law 2008, Article 20 and Title VIII. 52 Citizenship and Immigration Control Act 1999, Sections 7, 10 and 16. 53 Constitution of Uganda 1995, Article 42 “Right to just and fair treatment in administrative decisions”. UNHCR / September 2018