20 persons born before January 1, 2013 to retain or obtain citizenship. The affected persons included those who had acquired citizenship by descent by being born to a South African parent outside the country and had registered their births before January 1, 2013 and those who were born to South African parents outside the country but had not registered their births before January 1, 2013. Key Issue to be determined The main issue before the court was whether the challenged provisions were, indeed, unconstitutional and therefore whether the order of invalidity should be confirmed. Summary of judgment • Section 20 of the Constitution stated that no citizen could be denied citizenship. The Constitution passed on the authority for defining citizenship to national legislation. The 2010 amendments to the Citizenship Act provided new definitions for citizenship by birth and citizenship by descent. Citizenship by descent previously referred to ways in which the child of a South African parent who was born outside the country could acquire South African citizenship. After the amendment, it related to the ways in which an adopted child could acquire the citizenship of their South African parent. • The court held that the effect of the amendment was that those who were previously capable of acquiring citizenship by descent could acquire citizenship by birth as they were within the definition of a citizen by birth under the amended Citizenship Act. The individuals who had Under section 167(5) of the South African confirmation proceedings were qualified for citizenship by descent under section 3(1)(b) Constitution, filed at the Constitutional Court of South of the 1995 Citizenship Act, as they were born outside Africa. South Africa to a South African parent, were considered citizens by birth in terms of section 2(1)(c) of the 1995 Citizenship Act. The court noted that the language of the legislature in section 2(1)(a) of the amended Citizenship Act was clear. The provision retained citizenship for those who were citizens by birth on December 31, 2012. • In respect of section 2(1)(b), the Constitutional Court held that the purposive interpretation of the words “who is born” meant that it was a phrase that included those born both before and after the commencement of the 2010 Amendment. • The court held that the parties were mistaken in interpreting the words as being prospective only. The words described a state of being and the word “is” was used only in that context as a linking verb. The Constitutional Court found that that was not only a reasonable and grammatically-sound construction of the phrase, but also a more constitutionally compliant one than that which gave the word “is” a narrow interpretation. In light of that conclusion, the Constitutional Court held that four of the applicants, and those similarly placed, were within the scope of section 2(1)(b), as they were all born to a South African parent. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST