2. Institutionalised Arbitrariness Judicial oversight is particularly critical in the context of citizenship determination, where decisions have life-altering consequences. The right to nationality is a gateway right—its denial may lead to statelessness, prolonged detention, and exclusion from access to other fundamental rights. As emphasised in Chahal, the absence of judicial safeguards in such cases exposes individuals to severe risks, including torture or inhuman treatment. Citizenship determination procedures must therefore include judicial guarantees to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has similarly affirmed the importance of judicial remedies in contexts where administrative processes alone render rights ineffective. It has identified judicial recourse as indispensable in cases of discrimination.86 While administrative remedies may be acceptable in some contexts, they must meet strict criteria of accessibility, timeliness, and procedural fairness. Moreover, such mechanisms must include provision for judicial appeal wherever necessary. The burden lies on States to justify why judicial remedies are not appropriate—particularly in cases involving serious human rights concerns. Taken together, these international norms clearly require that mechanisms adjudicating citizenship claims be subject to meaningful judicial oversight. Administrative bodies may play a role, but they must operate under conditions that replicate the procedural safeguards found in judicial forums. Under international practice, administrative bodies handling citizenship in other jurisdictions are both established and regulated by law. In Canada, for instance, decisions on citizenship are made by administrative bodies under the Citizenship Act, 1985, within the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) framework.87 These decisions follow clearly defined statutory criteria and are subject to judicial review by the Federal Court, embedding procedural fairness within a legislative regime. In Kenya, under Article 21(1) of the Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act, the Cabinet Secretary may revoke citizenship acquired by registration only on constitutionally prescribed grounds,88 and only following a recommendation by the Citizenship Advisory Committee (CAC).89 The law mandates that individuals be given written notice and an opportunity to respond before revocation,90 thereby instituting procedural safeguards against arbitrary action. The requirement that the Cabinet Secretary act only on the CAC’s recommendation91 exemplifies the legal insulation of citizenship adjudication from unilateral executive discretion. These examples demonstrate that administrative decision-making on citizenship, where permitted, is accompanied by statutory mandates, procedural checks, and the availability of appeal. Where 86 87 88 89 90 91 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General comment No. 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights (art. 2, para. 2, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), E/C.12/GC/20, 2 July 2009, para 40. Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act, 1994, S.C. 1994, c. 31; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Department. Kenya Citizenship and Immigration Act 2011, s 21(1). ibid s 21(2). ibid s 21(3). ibid s 21(1). 45