Post-colonial Citizenship and Decolonisation as a Turning Point: Continuities and Discontinuities in African states The general retreat from jus soli attribution of citizenship is in apparent conformity with the patterns observed in Europe for states with large ethnic minorities and unconsolidated borders (Weil, 2001, p. 33; Joppke, 2010, p. 51); and in contrast to the pattern observed in Central Asia (Shevel, 2017, pp. 417–418). Those states that have adopted more restrictive rules have often been those with obvious anxieties about challenges to sovereignty and territorial integrity, or those with the greatest colonial-era expropriation of land or importation of labour to farm it. Increasing population pressure on available agricultural land has reduced the welcome for migrants as workers or clients, especially, of course, at times of economic stress. Citizenship law has also been instrumentalised to bar from office individual politicians alleged to have origins in a neighbouring state (Whitaker, 2005; Manby, 2019), or generally to disenfranchise or constrain the economic power of historical migrant groups (Muzondidya, 2005; Aminzade, 2015; Ng’weno and Aloo, 2019); while the expulsion of alleged foreigners has been used almost as a tool of nation-building (Gray, 1998; Bezabeh, 2011). It is, however, hard to see an obvious pattern among those that chose to introduce explicit ethnic discrimination into the citizenship law, which include states amongst the most and least diverse on the continent (Manby, 2018, chap. 10). We must nuance our analysis of the development of the formal law with a recognition of the deepseated legal pluralism created by colonial rule, and the continuities in citizenship administration over the longue durée, including the emphasis on ethnic identity. Recognition as a member of the community – at both local and national level – has since the colonial era depended as much on the legal and institutional frameworks governing the authority of (neo)traditional leadership structures or land tenure as on the substantive content of citizenship law (Kuba and Lentz, 2006; Boone, 2014; Nugent, 2019, pt. II). Colonial-era systems and categories for identification, and the ‘vetting’ procedures for those of doubtful status that partially rely on such leaders, have remained remarkably resilient (Dalberto and Banégas, 2021a). These overlapping regimes have been adapted and mobilised for political and economic gain, eroding the vision of a single national citizenship. It is also too simplistic to characterise the trends in the citizenship law itself as simply exclusionary. Attribution of citizenship based on double jus soli has been remarkably stable, remaining in effect in all the former AOF states where the rule was adopted at independence, even those where ethnic relations have been tense. In some contexts, moreover, a consideration of ethnicity could broaden rather than restrict access to citizenship, by creating pathways to recognition of citizenship for members of cross-border communities (part of the original intention in Nigeria, for example). In other places, explicit racial restrictions or preferences introduced at or immediately after independence were later removed (Malawi, Mali). The return of multiparty democracy in the 1990s brought not only a resurgence of ethnic tensions, but also the demand for independent electoral commissions and campaigns that increased voter registration among marginalised communities, a proxy for recognition of citizenship of the national state (Cheeseman, Lynch and Willis, 2020). There have been efforts to offer citizenship to descendants of pre-independence migrants left stranded at independence through special application procedures (for example in Kenya and Côte d’Ivoire), or to very longterm refugees (notably Tanzania). The post-apartheid governments in Namibia and South Africa put in place special procedures designed to allow those driven from or brought to each country by the previous regimes to access citizenship more easily. Several former British territories have introduced protection for children of unknown parents; others have provided rights through grandparents. Each of these changes reflects struggles for belonging at national level, and advocacy from a range of actors, including at international level (Manby, 2018, chap. 10). European University Institute 8