inherent to his status as provided in chapter II of the country’s constitution. Furthermore, a document attached to the note from the Respondent State contained the relevant constitutional provisions regarding Botswana citizenship as at the time of the country’s independence. The document provides explanatory details on the birth and parentage of the Complainant, who was born in the territory of what was then the Union of South Africa (which became the Republic of South Africa in 1961), of a father who had the status of a protected person of the British crown, though originating from the protectorate of Bechuanaland (present day Botswana). The Respondent State points out that Mr Modise and his counsel had probably innocently misunderstood and misinterpreted Section 20(2) of the Botswana Constitution. The Respondent State avers that the place of birth of an individual immediately confers its nationality on that person. This nationality by birth may later be rejected or given up by that person, his parents or legal custodian. To avoid a child being born stateless, the law operates in such a way that the place of birth confers its nationality to an individual. It is not necessary to take any legal steps to guarantee that nationality. Section 20(2) of the Constitution concerns those individuals born outside the protectorate of Bechuanaland and who were at the time of their birth either subjects of Her Majesty or crown protected persons and whose fathers had acquired Botswana citizenship in compliance with the provisions of Section 20(1). John K. Modise could have benefited from the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Constitution if his father, born in the protectorate territory and having the status of a crown protected person were alive at the time of Botswana’s independence. John K. Modise does not meet the conditions of Section 20(2) because, having been born in South Africa, he is by that fact a South African citizen by simple application of the law and without him having to take any legal steps to prove his nationality. Hence, in 1966, he was not a subject of Her Britannic Majesty and of her colonies, nor a protected person of the English crown. South Africa was not, in 1966, a British colony. Consequently, he did not meet the conditions required for acquiring Botswana nationality under Section 20(2). 72. Section 23(1) concerns the case of those individuals who found themselves in a similar situation to that of Mr Modise: in the sense that it provided the possibility of acquiring Botswana nationality to those persons whose fathers had acquired that nationality in compliance with Section 20(1); but even the children of such persons were excluded in the light of the provisions of Section 20(2). Since Mr Modise, by virtue of the legal provisions, could not lay claim to the nationality of the new state of Botswana either by birth or by parentage [Section 20(2)], the law gave him the possibility of choosing that nationality by naturalisation[ Section 23(1)]. This text provides that all those who had reached the age of majority should apply for their naturalisation before 1st October 1968. It seems that Mr Modise who was 33 years old as of that date had not taken advantage of that possibility which was open to him for a period of two years. This explains his present difficulties, for since he had not taken the steps necessary for his naturalisation, in the eyes of the law he was considered as not being interested. 73. The argument of Mr Modise and his counsel that he was a Botswana citizen by birth and by parentage does indeed seem tenuous. In terms of the legal provisions in force in September 1966, he could not lay claim to the said nationality. He was born in South Africa and not in the protectorate of Bechuanaland. He could not claim Botswana nationality by parentage because he was explicitly excluded there from by Section 20(2). The proposition that he has never claimed any other nationality is entirely immaterial – for he did not have any reason to do so. Having been born in South Africa, he automatically enjoyed the nationality of that country. That automatically disqualified him from holding Botswana nationality in compliance with Section 20(2). He could, however, by virtue of the provisions of Section 23(1), have opted for the said nationality, but did not do so. The State of Botswana has offered all and sundry the possibility of making a conscious choice between keeping their nationality by birth and naturalisation as a citizen of the new State of Botswana. Mr John Modise could not, in this regard, hide behind the excuse of ignorance, because no one is expected to be ignorant of the law. 74. In reaction to the above claims by the Respondent State, the Complainant's legal representative submitted that such claims contained several adverse claims of facts, law, and of mixed facts and law that were untrue, self-contradictory and contested.