Case Note famously Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia. 52 Others have highlighted the concerns of groups facing systematic discrimination in their access to citizenship; 53 or condemned mass expulsions in which little or no distinction has been made between nationals and non-nationals. 54 The very first decision issued by the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child also concerned discrimination in nationality administration. 55 In the Anudo case, the African Court made limited reference to these precedents, explicitly citing only a decision against Zambia. 56 Perhaps most importantly, it did not endorse the now established position of the African Commission that ‘a claim to citizenship or nationality as a legal status is protected under Article 5 of the Charter’. 57 Although this point was argued by the Open Society Justice Initiative in its amicus brief, the reason for not addressing it may have been that a violation of art 5 was not asserted by Asylum Access in its initial submission on behalf of the applicant. 58 The African Court thus missed an important opportunity to read the right to a nationality into the ACHPR itself. Nonetheless, the assertion that the UDHR is customary international law, and in particular art 15 on the right to a nationality, 59 is itself a welcome endorsement of a point more often argued by human rights lawyers than accepted by states. 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No 211/98 (7 May 2001) (‘Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia’). See also African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No 97/93 (6 November 2000) (‘John K Modise v Botswana’); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No 212/98 (5 May 1999) (‘Amnesty International v Zambia’); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No 246/02 (29 July 2008) (‘Mouvement ivoirien des droits humains (MIDH) v Côte d’Ivoire’). The African Commission also ruled on similar issues in the case of a long-term resident married to a citizen: African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No 313/05 (26 May 2010) (‘Kenneth Good v Republic of Botswana’). See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No 317/06 (30 May 2016) (‘Nubian Community in Kenya v Kenya’); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No 318/06 (27 May 2016) (‘Open Society Justice Initiative v Côte d'Ivoire’). See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No 71/92 (31 October 1996) (‘Rencontre Africain pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme (RADDHO) v Zambia’); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication Nos 27/89, 46/91, 49/91 and 99/93 (31 October 1996) (‘Organisation mondiale contre la torture and Others v Rwanda’); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No 159/96 (11 November 1997) (‘Union interafricaine des droits de l’Homme and Others v Angola’); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No 249/02 (7 December 2004) (‘Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Sierra Leonean refugees in Guinea) v Republic of Guinea’); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No 292/04 (22 May 2008) (‘Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (on behalf of Esmaila Connateh & 13 Others) v Angola’). African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Communication No 002/2009 (22 March 2011) (‘Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa and Open Society Justice Initiative on behalf of Children of Nubian Descent in Kenya v The Government of Kenya’). Anudo case (n 1) 24 [112], citing Amnesty International v Zambia (n 52). This case is not the Kaunda case, but contains similar facts relating to opposition politicians William Banda and John Chinula. Surprisingly, the Commission did not respond to an invitation to make a submission to the African Court on the Anudo case: at 6 [20]. Nubian Community in Kenya v Kenya (n 53) [140]. ACHPR (n 5) art 5 states that: ‘Every individual shall have the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being and to the recognition of his legal status. All forms of exploitation and degradation of man particularly slavery, slave trade, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and treatment shall be prohibited’. Anudo case (n 1) 4–5 [14]. ibid 17 [76]. 175