STATELESSNESS AND CITIZENSHIP IN THE EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY The very first decision on the merits of a communication to the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, issued in 2011, concerned the interpretation of Article 6 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child on the right to a name, birth registration and a nationality. In this decision on the Kenyan Nubian children, the African Committee of Experts found the Kenyan state in violation of its obligations under Article 6 of the Charter, despite the reforms of the new 2010 constitution, because it still failed to provide sufficient guarantees against statelessness since it does not provide that children born in Kenya of stateless parents or who would otherwise be stateless acquire Kenyan nationality at birth. The Committee stated that it “cannot overemphasise the overall negative impact of statelessness on children” and held that: [A]s much as possible, children should have a nationality beginning from birth. […] Moreover, by definition, a child is a person below the age of 18 (Article 2 of the African Children’s Charter), and the practice of making children wait until they turn 18 years of age to apply to acquire a nationality cannot be seen as an effort on the part of the State Party to comply with its children’s rights obligations.321 In March 2018, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights handed down judgment in the case of Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. Tanzania. The Court found Tanzania to be in violation of numerous human rights obligations, especially in relation to the application of due process of law. It ruled that Tanzania had unlawfully rendered Anudo stateless, and that: [S]ince the Respondent State is contesting the Applicant's nationality held since his birth on the basis of legal documents established by the Respondent State itself, the burden is on the Respondent state to prove the contrary.322 In relation to provisions in the Citizenship Act excluding court review, it decided that: [B]y declaring the Applicant an "illegal immigrant" thereby denying him Tanzanian nationality, which he has, until then enjoyed, without the possibility of an appeal before a national court, the Respondent State violated his right to have his cause heard by a judge within the meaning of Article 7(1) (a), (b) and (c) of the [African Charter].323 The Court notes further that the Tanzanian Citizenship Act contains gaps in as much as it does not allow citizens by birth to exercise judicial remedy where their nationality is challenged as required by international law. It is the opinion of the Court that the Respondent State has the obligation to fill the said gaps.324 The Court equally condemned similar provisions in the Immigration Act. Accordingly, the Court: “order[ed] the Respondent State to amend its legislation to provide individuals with judicial remedies in the event of dispute over their citizenship.”325 Zambia; Communication No. 249/02, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea) v. Republic of Guinea (2004). 321 Kenyan Nubian Children’s case, paragraph 42. See also text with footnotes 15 and 226. 322 Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania, App. No. 012/2015, African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights, Judgment of 22 March 2018, paragraph 80. 323 In the judgment, the reference here is to the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights): however, given the article reference, and earlier text of the judgment, this is clearly not what was intended. 324 Anudo Ochieng Anudo v. United Republic of Tanzania, App. No. 012/2015, African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights, Judgment of 22 March 2018, paragraphs 115 and 116. 325 Ibid., paragraph 132(viii). UNHCR / September 2018 75