Sub-articles 12(1) to (3) of the ICCPR provide for freedom of movement within a state for those who are lawfully present there and for freedom to leave any country, subject to limits related to national security, and public order, health or morals, so long as they are consistent with other rights in the ICCPR. Article 13 provides that “an alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law.” The right to a nationality and to freedom of movement are explicitly linked by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which places them in the same article (article 18).382 Although the rights to freedom of movement within a state and limitation on expulsion is restricted by these treaty provisions to a person who is lawfully present, the question of lawful presence is itself subject to due process requirements and the right to challenge both the reasons for expulsion and the allegation that a person is in fact a foreigner. Arbitrary deprivation or denial of nationality is not a legitimate reason for expulsion. Thus, the International Law Commission Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens provide that “a State shall not make its national an alien, by deprivation of nationality, for the sole purpose of expelling him or her.”383  The International Court of Justice ruled in favour of Guinea in a case brought against what was then Zaire, finding that Zaire had not provided available and effective remedies enabling an individual to challenge an expulsion, because the decision (which was technically to “refuse entry”) could not be appealed.384 The right to due process in relation to expulsion of (alleged) non-nationals has been repeatedly confirmed by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.  Considering Article 12 of the African Charter on free movement, the Commission has ruled against both Angola and Zambia in cases relating to individual deportations or mass expulsions on the basis of ethnicity, commenting that mass expulsions “constitute a special violation of human rights” (specifically condemned by Article 12(5) of the Charter).385  The Commission has also ruled that the exception in Article 12(2) of the Charter relating to “the protection of national security, law and order, public health or morality” does not pre-empt the right to have a case heard, and that it is for the state to prove the threat to national security, law and order, public health or morality.386 Nonnationals are also entitled to a fair hearing.387  In the Anudo case before the African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, similar principles were endorsed, including with reference to the provisions of the ICCPR.388 Participation in public affairs Access to nationality on an equal basis is foundational to the right to participate in public affairs, to vote and to hold public service positions, guaranteed by Article 25 of the ICCPR. Thus, in its General Comment on this article, the UN Human Rights Committee stated that: No distinctions are permitted between citizens in the enjoyment of these rights on the grounds of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Distinctions between those who are entitled to citizenship by birth and those who acquire it by naturalisation may raise questions of compatibility with article 25 [to vote and participate in public affairs].389 Many of the cases brought to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights cited in this Guide have related to politicians whose nationality was asserted to have been fraudulently acquired. Among other violations, including 382 The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has criticized discriminatory provisions and practices in relation to nationality, as have other treaty bodies, but without making this explicit connection. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Concluding Observations: Myanmar, CRPD/C/ MMR/CO/1, 22 October 2019, para. 36; Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Concluding Observations: Guatemala, CRPD/C/GTM/CO/1, 30 September 2016, para. 52. For other references to disability by treaty bodies, see the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion database on statelessness and human rights: https://database.institutesi.org/. Expulsion of aliens: Texts and titles of the draft articles adopted by the Drafting Committee on second reading, International Law Commission Sixty-sixth session, UN General Assembly, A/CN.4/L.797, 24 May 2012. 383 Legislative Order No. 83-033 of 12 September 1983, concerning immigration control, expressly ruled out a right of appeal in case of refusal of entry. Case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of Congo), Preliminary Objections, International Court of Justice, 24 May 2007, para. 46. 384 Union Interafricaine des Droits de l’Homme and Others v. Angola, supra n 326, para. 16. See also Communication No.292/2004, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Angola, Communication No. 292/2004) decision of 22 May 2008; Rencontre Africain pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme v. Zambia supra n 304; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights decision Malawi Africa Association and others v. Mauritania, Communication Nos. 54/91, 61/91, 98/93, 164/97 à 196/97 and 210/98 (consolidated), 11 May 2000, http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/africa/comcases/Comm54-91.pdf. 385 386 Amnesty International v. Zambia, supra n 324, para. 42. Kenneth Good v. Republic of Botswana, Communication No. 313/05, 26 May 2010, https://achpr.au.int/index.php/en/decisions-communications/kenneth-good-republic-botswana-31305. 387 388 Anudo v. Tanzania supra n 109. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service, 1996. 389 U N H C R | L I T I G AT I N G T H E R I G H T T O A N AT I O N A L I T Y: A G U I D E F O R P R AC T I T I O N E R S 85