Realising the Child’s Right to a Nationality in South Africa reality, to their security of person. Deprivation of, or interference with, a person’s citizenship status affects their private and family life, their choices as to where they can call home, start jobs, enrol in schools, and form part of a community, as well as their ability to fully participate in the political sphere and exercise freedom of movement. Having regard to the three South African politicians quoted earlier in the article,84 in office at different times across the 20th century, the Constitutional Court provides a meaningful departure from the exclusionary sentiments regarding citizenship that mark South Africa’s history. According to the Court, the Constitution was designed to do exactly that: to ‘ensure a radical and transformative departure from the past’.85 The new South Africa is founded upon a common South African citizenship86 of which no citizen may be deprived87 and where all citizens are equally entitled to the rights, privileges and benefits of citizenship.88 The Chisuse judgment establishes these principles as a point of departure in nationality matters ‘which recognises the fundamental importance of citizenship under the Constitution, bearing in mind our country’s history, and recognising the possible violations of the Constitution that would occur’.89 The judgment situates citizenship rights within a narrative that promotes inclusion, equality and dignity. The law therefore provides a narrative that will influence political, social and cultural attitudes to citizenship going forward, hopefully expanding the space for inclusionary citizenship practices. In the end, the Constitutional Court did not confirm the declaration of constitutional invalidity of s 2(1) but instead provided an interpretation that includes those born before 2013 and is in line with the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights. As such, the Court prevented a situation in which the applicants and others in similar situations were deprived of citizenship overnight,90 referring specifically to the possibility of statelessness when determining that the section not be interpreted in this way.91 The Court confirmed that s 2(1) applies to all persons born to South African citizens anywhere in the world at any point in the past, present or future.92 This means that it is no longer necessary to interpret the morass of pre-2010 legislation applicable at the point when an individual was born in order to determine their citizenship status. It provides clarity on the way the section must operate to the officials who are charged with applying the law.93 Finally, the Court confirmed that ‘citizenship does not depend on a discretionary decision; rather, it constitutes a question of law’,94 thus confirming that a court is competent to declare citizenship without interfering with the separation of powers of government. This judgment has paved the way for the following judgments in which it has been quoted extensively. 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Peberdy (n 7) 1. Chisuse (n 52) [29]. Constitution (n 3) s 3. ibid s 20. ibid s 3(2). Chisuse (n 52) 34. ibid. ibid 76. ibid 78. Abahlali Basemjondolo Movement SA v Premier of the Province of Kwa-Zulu Natal [2010] (2) BCLR 99 (CC), 124–5. Chisuse (n 52) 88. 269