2022 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(2) question as to whether it preserved the citizenship rights of previous citizens by descent or if it only applied to those born after the amendment came into force in 2013. The Constitutional Court’s judgment waded into the history of citizenship rights in colonial and apartheid South Africa, and acknowledged that citizenship is, and has been since the early 1900s, ‘a deeply fraught political, social and ideological tool used to define access to membership of the South African polity’.79 The Court granted the applicants their citizenship after many years of statelessness and in the process created a narrative which set the standard for nationality determination and administration, marked by a sensitivity to the dignity of South Africans who had endured a century of ‘othering’ and citizenship stripping. In summary, the applicants had all been born abroad to South African citizens before 2013 (the year the amendment came into force) and their births had not been registered, which had been a requirement for citizenship acquisition prior to 2013. Each applicant had their application for birth registration refused for different reasons but none were provided with formal reasons or the opportunity to appeal the decision. They were sent from ‘pillar to post’ until they approached Lawyers for Human Rights for assistance.80 In making their case to the Court, the applicants realised that the amendment to the Citizenship Act seemed to exclude them from citizenship. Since the Department was still denying their right to citizenship, this seemingly unintended error had to be corrected by the Courts. In the High Court, ss 2(1)(a) and (b) were declared unconstitutional and an extended reading of the sections was put in place pending the Constitutional Court’s confirmation of constitutional invalidity.81 At the same time, four of the five applicants were declared to be South African citizens. One such applicant was a child born in Accra, Ghana, to a South African citizen who had passed away. The child had been stateless from birth until this judgment was passed in 2021, when she was 14 years old. Godfrey Dalitso Kangaude, Deevia Bhana and Ann Skelton argue that the law is a narrative.82 The narrative created by both the legislature and the courts influences the social, political and cultural norms of a society and ultimately affects the level of enjoyment of rights which children can access. In a country where citizenship is a matter of historical violation and xenophobic attitudes are the order of the day, a legal narrative that encourages inclusion and reminds us of the importance of the dignity of the applicants is crucial. The Constitutional Court dedicated a significant portion of the judgment to reframing citizenship within a constitutional South Africa. The Court articulated the importance of an inclusionary citizenship regime as follows:83 Citizenship and equality of citizenship is therefore a matter of considerable importance in South Africa, particularly bearing in mind the abhorrent history of citizenship deprivation suffered by many in South Africa over the last hundred and more years. Citizenship is not just a legal status. It goes to the core of a person’s identity, their sense of belonging in a community and, where xenophobia is a lived 79 80 81 82 83 ibid 1. ibid 3. ibid. Godfrey Dalitso Kangaude, Deevia Bhana and Ann Skelton, ‘Childhood Sexuality in Africa: A Child Rights Perspective’ (2020) 20(2) African Human Rights Law Journal 688, 695. Chisuse (n 52) [28]. 268