Kennedy Gihana v Republic of Rwanda considering none of them were informed of the invalidation. 12 When interviewed by the Mail and Guardian as to why the passports had been cancelled, Vincent Karega, High Commissioner of Rwanda to South Africa, said that the reasons ‘could range from a person being implicated in “crimes” in Rwanda to a person having refugee status, which, he claimed, “is incompatible with having a passport”’. 13 At the time of writing, there is no indication as to whether this list is a regular practice of the respondent state. ISSUE The Court summarised the applicant’s allegations as follows: The Applicants allege that the invalidation of their passports is an arbitrary deprivation of nationality, it has rendered them stateless, and has a significant impact on the enjoyment of a number of universally accepted fundamental human rights specifically, the right to: (i) participation in political life; (ii) freedom of movement; (iii) citizenship; (iv) liberty; (v) family life; and (vi) work. 14 These points became the primary issues in the matter. HOLDING A Was the Revocation of Passports Arbitrary? On the issue of whether the revocation of the passports was arbitrary, the Court revisited its decision in Anudo, where it ruled that such revocation must: i) be founded on a clear legal basis; ii) serve a legitimate purpose that conforms with international law; iii) be proportionate to the interest protected; iv) respect prescribed procedural guarantees, allowing the concerned to challenge the decision before an independent body. 15 Whilst art 34 of the 2011 Law No 04/2011 of 21/03/2011 on Immigration and Emigration in Rwanda (‘Rwandan Immigration and Emigration Law’) provides that ‘[a] travel document is the property of the state. It may be withdrawn from the holder in case it is evident that he/she uses it or may use it in an inappropriate manner’, 16 the respondent state had not shown cause as to whether any of the applicants had used their passports in an ‘inappropriate manner’. 17 In line with its reasoning in the Anudo case, the Court shifted the burden of proof to the state, leaving them to prove the applicant’s passports were revoked in line with art 34 of the Rwandan Immigration and Emigration Law: since the Applicants allege that their passports have been revoked arbitrarily, they are required to prove their claim. However, considering that, it is the Respondent state's agencies which have the access to records and monopoly of regulating the 12 13 14 15 16 17 ibid. Thalia Holmes, ‘Rwanda Cancels Exiles’ Passports’, Mail and Guardian (online, 12 November 2012) <https://mg.co.za/article/2012-11-30-00-rwanda-cancels-exilespassports/>. Kennedy (n 1) 3 [5]. ibid 20 [82], citing Anudo (n 3) 18 [79]. Law No 04/2011 of 21/03/2011 on Immigration and Emigration in Rwanda (2011) art 34 (‘Law No 04/2011’). Kennedy (n 1) 21 [87]. 333