The widely reported controversy surrounding Chidimma Adetshina’s citizenship has brought into focus a broader issue concerning the extent to which a child should bear the consequences of wrongdoing committed by a parent while that child was still a minor.
In 2024, the Department of Home Affairs announced that there were prima facie reasons to believe that fraud and identity theft may have been committed by the person recorded in its records as Adetshina’s mother. Importantly, the Department also acknowledged that Adetshina could not have participated in the alleged conduct because she was an infant when it occurred.
The State has a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of South Africa’s National Population Register. Documents obtained through fraud cannot simply be accepted as valid, particularly where another innocent South African may have suffered identity theft. Home Affairs has accordingly taken steps to address fraudulent identity and citizenship records.
But correcting a parent's fraudulent status raises a different set of questions. Foremost; what is the legal and moral position of a child who had no knowledge of, and no involvement in, that fraud?
South African citizenship law provides a pathway for certain persons born in South Africa to foreign parents to acquire citizenship when they reach adulthood, subject to statutory requirements. The legislation requires, among other things, that the person lived in South Africa from birth until attaining majority and that their birth was properly registered. The regulations and subsequent amendments have, however, introduced additional requirements concerning the status of the parents, making the question considerably more complicated.
This is where the Adetshina matter presents an important constitutional challenge.
A parent may commit fraud. A State may consequently withdraw or invalidate documents obtained through that fraud. But should the legal consequences automatically follow the child?
Adetshina did not choose her parents. She did not choose the circumstances of her birth. She did not participate in the alleged fraud. She was born in South Africa and spent her formative years being educated and growing up in the country. The Department itself recognised that she could not have participated in her mother's alleged conduct because she was an infant at the time.
This does not mean that being born in South Africa automatically makes a person a South African citizen. South African law does not provide unrestricted citizenship by birth. The issue is instead whether a person who has established a lifelong connection with South Africa should have an independent opportunity to acquire citizenship, notwithstanding wrongdoing committed by a parent.
There is an important principle of fairness as well. Individual responsibility should not disappear merely because citizenship law is being enforced.
The State must protect its immigration system and prevent fraud. But justice also requires that the innocent should not be punished for the wrongdoing of others. A child should not necessarily be treated as having participated in a parent's deception simply because the child's legal status was affected by that deception.
The Adetshina case therefore presents South Africa with an opportunity to confront the consequences of parental wrongdoing for a child who was a minor at the time, and to consider whether the State’s response should be confined to correcting the parent’s unlawful status rather than allowing those consequences to follow the child into adulthood.
There may be compelling reasons for Parliament to provide a clear mechanism for people in this position to establish their own entitlement to citizenship once they reach adulthood. Such a mechanism would not reward fraud. Rather, it would recognise that a parent's legal identity and a child's individual identity are not necessarily the same thing.
Ultimately, the question is not whether the State should tolerate fraudulent citizenship. It should not.
The deeper issue is whether the law can correct wrongdoing committed by a parent and protect the integrity of the State without compromising the rights and dignity of a child who was entirely innocent of that wrongdoing.
