Peoples’ Right to a Nationality nationality, states must avoid rendering persons stateless and must not discriminate in the right to nationality. 138 CONCLUSION From the aforementioned discussions on current practice related to collective peoples’ and community rights on the African continent, it is evident that the right to nationality in Africa can take place at different levels, namely the state, the community and the individual levels. This article has shown that a people or a community could collectively present a case for a right to nationality in Africa, because of the communitarian values of Ubuntu and the provisions of the Banjul Charter, which make collective rights a reality. The Banjul Charter has made provisions for many rights to be enjoyed as individual, group and collective peoples’ rights and the 2001 SERAC (on Behalf of) the Ogoni People v Nigeria case has shown the indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of individual, group and people’s rights in the continent. The right to nationality is one of those cross-cutting rights that could be conferred by the state and enjoyed as an individual, group, people and community right. This study has shown that when nationality-related rights are violated, the Commission, Committee or Courts have resorted to individual, group and peoples’ rights provisions of the Charter to address the violation and issue remedies. However, the African interpretative bodies such as the Commission, the Committee and the Court have no real follow-up, implementation and enforceability mechanisms. There is also no legally prescribed consequence for a signatory’s non-compliance with their recommendations. 139 Consequently, African states have been slow and not very consistent in addressing and abiding by the decisions and recommendations from the Commission, Committee and Court. For instance, in Institute on Human Rights and Development and Open Society Justice Initiative v Kenya (‘Kenyan Nubian children case’), 140 the affected children still face discrimination in birth registration, which puts them at risk of statelessness. 141 In the Endorois case, the implementation by the Kenyan Government is equally slow in spite of the organisation of community workshops, strategic exchanges with community members and allies, the Government and the Commission. 142 Moreover, given the fact that litigation is expensive and that many persons whose rights to nationality are being violated is because they belong to particular communities or people, future actions will be more constructive and in the interest of all if they target collective peoples’ right to nationality. The collective peoples’ rights perspective to understanding statelessness in Africa is further grounded in the African communitarian system and belief in 138 See 139 140 141 142 Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v Dominican Republic (Judgment) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C No 282, 28 August 2014) <https://corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_282_ing.pdf>. See Morne van der Linde and Lirette Louw, ‘Considering the Interpretation and Implementation of Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights in the Light of the SERAC Communication’ (2003) 3(1) African Human Rights Law Journal 167. <https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/R21586.pdf>. Institute on Human Rights and Development and Open Society Justice Initiative v Kenya (Kenyan Nubian children) (Judgement) (African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Case No. 02/2010, 22 March 2011). See Implementation of the Nubian Minors v Kenya (Briefing Paper, African Committee of Experts on the Right and Welfare of the Child February 2014). See ‘The Endorois Case’ ESCR-Net (Web Page, 5 June 2018) <https://www.escrnet.org/news/2018/endorois-case>. 57