14 absence of sex as a ground for unfair treatment catered to the fact that the society of Botswana was based on tracing ones origin through the male line . The appellant also added that the absence of a constitutional violation to be complained of meant that the applicant had no locus standi (meaning a right to sue) to apply to the High Court for redress under section 18 of the Constitution. Summary of judgment • Though not the central issue of the case, the court noted that an immediate effect of the law could be the expulsion of the husband and non-citizen children from Botswana. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision in finding that the Citizenship Act discriminated on the basis of gender under both the Botswana Constitution and the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women because it punished a female citizen for marrying a non-citizen male. In addition, the Court considered similar cases in different countries in reaching its opinion. • If the Legislature intended that equal treatment of males and females be excepted from the application of sections 15(1) or 15(2) of the Constitution, they would have provided for that expressly. The court noted that the list of grounds upon which unfair treatment could be based was not exhaustively provided for under section 15 of the Constitution. There could be other grounds for unfair treatment that the provision did not list. • The constitutional provisions on citizenship included section 22 of the Constitution. The provisions allowed children of Botswana men to acquire citizenship in situations where children of Botswana women would not necessarily acquire citizenship. A provision of the Constitution could not be said to be unconstitutional. The court held that the fact that the Constitution differentiated between men and women when it came to citizenship was a legitimate exception. The meaning of section 3 and 15 of the Constitution was therefore altered by the original provisions in section 22 of the Constitution. • Under section 18 of the Constitution any person that alleged a contravention of the provisions of section 3 to 16 of the Constitution had a right to seek redress at the High Court. What was required of the applicant in order to establish locus standi (right to sue) was an allegation, to be established in proof, that any of those provisions had been infringed. The question about locus standi (right to sue ) was a question on whether the applicant made an allegation that had a reasonable foundation. The applicant’s case included assertions on unfair treatment and that her husband and her two children that were born in Botswana were put through alien treatment. Her husband and children had to seek permits and to have them extended periodically. She alleged that during the waiting period when a permit was to be issued there was uncertainty and they suffered anxiety and mental anguish. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision in finding that the Citizenship Act discriminated on the basis of gender under both the Botswana Constitution and the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women because it punishes a female citizen for marrying a non-citizen male. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST