An analysis of the impact of nationalism on the rights of dual citizens in Zambia: an equality approach
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2019
Authors
Shubayi, Chatora
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
The University of Zambia
Abstract
Zambia’s Constitution (Amendment) Act, No. 2 of 2016 provides rights and places duties upon
the status of citizenship. Equality and non- discrimination are recognized as national values
used to interpret the Constitution and in the enactment of laws. Nevertheless, the Constitution
seemingly discriminates against citizens with ‘Dual Citizenship’, from eligibility to serve in
public office such as the President, Vice President, National Assembly Speaker, and service
under the Defense and National Security agencies. This demonstrates conflict of policy
objectives underlying national values and the prohibitive clauses. For liberalists, this derogates
from citizenship rights, because despite recognizing equality and non- discrimination, ‘Dual
Citizenship’ is a status viewed as challenging to communitarian notions of nationalism.
Underpinned by a doctrinal approach carried out through desk research and thematic analysis
of the sources of the material, this study ascertains how nationalism impacts on dual citizen’s
rights, and whether justifications exist, in light of principles of equality and nondiscrimination,
among citizens. This study also interrogates the consequences of the said
impact on the state and citizen, and what lessons could be learnt from other jurisdictions. The
study revealed that notions of nationalism limit citizenship rights relating to political
participation and equality of opportunity. The loyalty justification for the restrictions remains
questionable, because reviewed studies do not reveal consensus that loyalty to a specific
political state is the precondition for office holders. Furthermore, legislative provision for the
limitations does not make them justifiable in a democratic society, as discriminatory practices
are challengeable, even when legal. For differential treatment to be discriminatory, it should
lack reasonable justification. A difference in enjoyment of citizenship rights was established
despite the Constitution not distinguishing in its definition of ‘citizen’. The study argues that
the absence of conclusive data from studies on ‘divided allegiances’ makes the restrictions
unreasonably justifiable treatment as the discrimination proves unfair, due to its impact on the
victims. Adverse economic, social and political consequences of this for the state and the
citizen are numerous. Conversely, the United Kingdom places no distinction in the nature of
British citizenship that qualifies for office of Prime Minister. The United Kingdom extends its
liberal approach to non-British citizens, particularly, Irish and Commonwealth citizens,
including eligibility to join British armed forces. Nigeria is also progressive as ‘Dual
Citizenship’ is no disqualification for high level public office for citizens by birth.
This study recommends legislative reforms to eliminate citizenship inequality by narrowing
restrictions premised on perceived divided loyalties. These include: requiring dual citizens in
public office to declare conflict of interest in specific situations, executing bilateral or
multilateral agreements confining dual citizens’ military service to countries of habitual
residence and enlisting army personnel on professional basis than imputing loyalty associated
with citizenship. The impact of the findings and recommendations on the study is that they
provide a basis upon which the study can inform the need for reform both in policy and the
law.
Keywords: Citizenship, ‘Dual Citizenship’, Nationalism, Equality and Non-discrimination
Description
Thesis
Keywords
Citizenship-- Dual Citizenship--Zambia , Nationalism--Equality and Non-discrimination--Zambia