33. In terms of section 4(3) of the South African Citizenship Act (“SACA”) - children who are born in South Africa to parents who are not South African citizens nor permanent residents and who have lived in South Africa from birth to the age of 18 years old, qualify for South African citizenship by naturalisation. However, as with section 2(2), the DHA has also failed to promulgate regulations providing for the practical implementation of this section. 34. This case involved five young people who were born in South Africa to parents who were either refugees or asylum seekers. They met all the requirements for citizenship by naturalisation under Section 4(3) SACA, but the DHA had refused to receive and grant the applications because it claimed the provision only applied prospectively to children born from 201346, and the DHA had thus not enacted any regulations prescribing the administrative process for such applications. The court ruled that the DHA’s interpretation was incorrect and that the provision applied retrospectively and prospectively. The court ordered the DHA to promulgate the necessary regulations by 30 November 2019 and to accept all application on affidavit in the intervening period. 35. The Ali judgment is augmented by another similar case, that of Minister of Home Affairs v Jose (2020) ZASCA 152 (25 November 2020). That case concerns two brothers who were born in South Africa to Angolan citizen parents. The family was initially granted refugee status, but this status was withdrawn during the Angolan cessation process in 2013. The brothers had attempted to apply for South African citizenship by naturalisation under Section 4(3), but the DHA had refused to receive and grant the applications based on the lack of regulations. With reference to the Ali judgement and the Constitutional Court judgment in Chisuse v DirectorGeneral Department of Home Affairs 2020 (ZACC) 20, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that once a citizenship by naturalisation applicant meets all the jurisdictional requirements prescribed by section 4(3), and critically, clarified there is no room for the exercise of discretion by the DHA and the applicant must be granted citizenship. 36. To date, DHA has not complied with the order made in the Ali judgment in terms of promulgating the necessary regulations. In late 2020, the Minister of Home Affairs responded to a written Parliamentary Question, indicating that they would comply with the order. In addition, draft regulations were published for comment. However, these draft regulations were flawed in that they did not comply with the interpretation provided in both the Ali and Jose judgments. After the publication of the draft regulations, no further pronouncement has been made by the Department, and no final regulations passed.47 37. To compound matters, the DHAs citizenship section was shut down from March 2020 (at the commencement of the Covid-19 lockdown) to February 2022. During this period, no citizenship applications were being processed, leaving several young people who could have accessed citizenship through Section 4(3) SACA undocumented and in a state of limbo. The shutdown has also exacerbated existing backlogs at the DHA. While the DHA has announced that all citizenship services have resumed, some offices are still refusing to accept applications. 46 47 Given that Section 4(3) was introduced in an amendment that came into operation in 2013 https://www.scalabrini.org.za/resources/submissions/our-submissions-on-citizenship-act-draft-regulations/ 12