- 111
- 554 876
The Constitutional Court of South Africa
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2020
Constitutional Court Law Clerk Programme (2025 Intake) Virtual Information Session
Constitutional Court Law Clerk Programme (2025 Intake) Virtual Information Session
มุมมอง: 1 010
วีดีโอ
CCT 101 20 Centre for Child Law v Director General Department of Home Affairs and Other
มุมมอง 2.9K4 ปีที่แล้ว
CCT 101 20 Centre for Child Law v Director General Department of Home Affairs and Other
Adv Khumalo gave a Master class here!
Madam Justice N Mhlantla is beautiful.....13/11/2024
Thank you Sandile Khumalo for your pro bono cases.
THOSE WHO CLAIM MASETE WAS MARRIED 2 THE DECEASED SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED 2 DETERMINE WHETHER THEY DIDN'T BENEFIT FROM THE CLAIMS
THIS KHUMALO GUY IS ONE OF THE BRIGHTEST LEGAL MINDS IN SA
I agree. Easy to follow as well
Those people who says she was a customeray wife must be charged for misrepresenting custom because it cannot happen.
😂judge Theron she is on fire
FRAUDSTERS SAW THE OPPORTUNITY TO 'GET RICH QUICK' & RAN TO THE FUND 2 CLAIM. WHAT A SICK WORLD WE ARE LIVING IN! SIES!!!!!!
Interesting arguments presented by Sandile khumalo and the discussion with Justice Theron was captivating 😃
Verily..
The Merafong Municipality is in a permanent state of crisis.
I must admit, when we think people are put on earth, then we have sovereignty, suddenly sovereignty countries have power to refuse others...certantly seems to me to a bigger crime...
Thanks con court. We have great independence and great judges.
Whether repriciptivity..lol it would make easier for government as they dont need process persons who have lost citizenship and apply to Home Affairs...for home affairs to process these apllications. Further there is no impact on home affairs. If as a citizen comment, if i changed the law i would require citizens to notify home affairs if they assume another citizenship..so home affairs has record. However, notification should be easy process of notification
Whether repriciptivity..lol it would make easier for government as they dont need process persons who have lost citizenship and apply to Home Affairs...for home affairs to process these apllications. Further there is no impact on home affairs. If as a citizen comment, if i changed the law i would require citizens to notify home affairs if they assume another citizenship..so home affairs has record. However, notification should be easy process of notification
Turkey allows dual citizenship; it merely requires one to notify the relevant Ministry. Those who apply for another nationality inform the relevant Turkish authority (usually the nearest Turkish embassy or consulate abroad) and provide the original naturalisation certificate, Turkish birth certificate, document attesting to completion of military service (for males), marriage certificate (if applicable) and four photographs. Of course, failure to do this does NOT mean you lose your Turkish citizenship however; Turkey has no automatic loss provision. It seems more directory rather than mandatory. This is another less restrictive alternative which shows why the existing law is unconstitutional.
The automatic stripping of a citizen citizenship, for no legitimate reason, for example, criminal behavior (although i dont agree these grounds, unless it was related to like treason - something very serious, or other valid ground, seems beyond excessive...almost military action....
Admittedly i wanted to listen to the constitutional court due to myself personally being able to relate to the subject or matter. Interestingly, legislation should be simple, the fact that the sections application, e.g, where marriage occurs, it should not apply, seemed still needed clarification, reflects that the current provision is not simple. Interestingly, the citizen frustration in making these applications for permission are extensively prolonged, and the power, arbitrary by Minister to not approve, are all very challenging.
M always captivated and intrigued by the engagement from Justice MR Madlanga to counsels....he always displays clarity of thought and expression...6/11/2024
Is this the son or relative of former CJ??? 6/11/2024
When the UK changed their nationality laws on allowing children who were born outside the UK to UK born mothers (husband not a UK citizen) before 1983, I applied for UK citizenship in South African by descent. I have never lived in the UK but I lost my SA citizenship. I challenged DHA about this and argued that the citizenship I got was from a bloodline and not by natrualisation. They told me that any South African who is outside of SA and had children abroad, their children could apply for SA citizenship at anytime. My response was what is the difference between me and them - we are the children of a foreign citizen who had children outside their native country. The UK was correcting their citizenship that discriminated against women passing their citizenship to their children. I got back my SA citizenship without any application to regain it.
At the 11:30 mark, Mr Katz is incorrectly saying that Mr Plaaitjies should not have lost his SA citizenship as he gained UK citizenship by marriage - which is NOT true. No-one gains UK (or US, Australian etc. citizenship) through marriage. What they do get is the right to residence in that country - and can remain a resident of that country - there is no requirement to then take the entirely voluntary act of naturalization several years later, which is how those who marry foreign citizens MAY become foreign citizens -i.e. they do so through naturalization, and not through marriage. i.e. they become ELIGIBLE (eventually) for citizenship through marriage, but the BECOME citizens through naturalization - an entirely voluntary act.
Not convinced by Katz on this one
The stronger argument is non-discrimination, dignity, and lack of due process. 1. There is no judicial or quasi-judicial body which exists to remove the citizenship status of the applicant. Rather, the loss is ex lege, without notice and without any formal hearing. Fundamental rights cannot be lost without due process - here fair and reasonable procedure requires a formal judicial or quasi-judicial hearing **prior** to their citizenship being lost. We need an impartial apolitical decision maker who can assess, in all the circumstances, whether the loss would be in accordance with the principle of proportionality. 2. A naturalised SA citizen can retain their citizenship by birth or descent (if that country accepts dual citizenship). So can someone who is under 18. So can a married person. So why not a South African by birth and descent who acquires a foreign citizenship? So many other exceptions it absurdly swallows the rule. 3. It goes without saying citizenship confers dignity. But s6(1)(a) renders you a foreigner - the same status for criminals, fraudsters, and mercenaries under s6(1)(b), 8(1)(a), and 8(2) of the Citizenship Act. The loss also removes numerous political and economic rights that are linked with both citizenship and dignity (eg the right to vote and to actively participate in public affairs, etc).
@@jamesbrandstetter789 UK allows dual nationality, what he did what a lot of them do is that they do not apply to the SA consulate for permission to take on British citizenship. To retain you SA citizenship you need to apply and wait for the permission letter and then apply for British citizenship. Even on the British application they do ask you if you have permission from your country to apply for UK citizenship. I had to send my permission letter when I applied for UK citizenship. This is a matter of a lot of people just not being bothered to do what they need to do. I say give them a huge fine for their neglectful behaviour.
@@Tinker8531A fine is still a less drastic and less restrictive alternative to wholesale loss of citizenship. I suspect the reason he did not do it (although this occurred back in the early 2000s) was because most do not know about it (you are in the 3% that do) and 76% of countries worldwide do not have such a procedure (dual citizenship is simply legal and viewed innocously in most countries) and one is not sure exactly what one has to say to retain it. Unlike s25 of the German Nationality Act (repealed this year), there is no clear statutory criteria as to what is being balanced or what exactly they are looking for. You have only 4 summary lines on the application form to explain why you want to retain it. The form asks you how you got your second citizenship, but not why. Your fate - and many political rights with it - is at the mercy of the government who may or may not grant the request. Anyways, my due process point stands: a person should lose their citizenship only *after formal judicial or quasi-judicial hearing* and *before a neutral apolitical umpire* - not simply by force of law and it should not depend on a career politican who may or may not like your politics. So stands my antidiscrimination point: <18 year olds do not need to go through the retention procedure. Nor do married individuals as they are exempt in s6(1)(a) itself. Nor do naturalised citizens who can hold on to their citizenship by birth and descent (if the other country recognises dual citizenship). With so many exceptions why is a retention procedure or automatic loss rational at all? And ultimately one sufferers the same fate as a treasonous mercenary, fraudster, or terrorist (cf. s6(1)(b), 8(1)(a), and 8(2) of the Citizenship Act).
1. Marrying a British citizen does NOT automatically grant you British citizenship. In the UK, you must still apply for citizenship separately after meeting certain eligibility requirements and fulfilling residency naturalisation criteria - so I do not think the applicant gets the benefit of the 6(1)(a) exception. He obtained citizenship via naturalisation. The deemed voluntary act was a 'naturalisation' (even if marriage expedited the naturalisation). www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-spouse 2. Historically, in Iran, a foreign woman who marries an Iranian man is automatically granted Iranian citizenship, regardless of whether she requests it (Article 976(6) Iranian Civil Code). In Italy, foreign women who married Italian men before April 26, 1983 automatically became Italian citizens. This is probably why the 6(1)(a) marriage exception exists: the voluntary act of marriage gets you citizenship ispo facto. Historically women automatically lost their citizenship upon marrying a foreigner. In many countries marriage expedits / accelerates naturalisation (residency is shorter), but it is still a naturalisation (via a marriage route). It is unclear if s6(1)(a) extends to expedited 'naturalisation accelerated via marriage'. Probably not: the voluntary act is naturalisation rather than marriage. Either way it is irrational: why give allow it for just married couples and under 18s but not others? Surely citizenship means much more to someone who has held it for 27 years than a mere teenager whose identity has yet to fully develop. 3. The loss/deprivation distinction is a moot point. s3(3) is not unfettered and absolute: any loss of citizenship must be subject to the Bill of Rights, including the rights in sections 9, 10 and 33 of the Constitution (and thus apart from section 20). 4. The overwhelming majority of countries worldwide allow persons who obtained their original citizenship by birth/descent to retain it. There is nothing harmful about having a second citizenship to pursue health, economic, or other pursuits. 5. Not only does 6(1)(a) operate "ex lege" without notice and without any formal ex ante judicial or independent tribunal oversight before a fundamental liberty interest is removed (instead a politican decides a question linked with political rights in 6(2)), but 6(2) is utterly rudderless. It is unclear what one should list or what factors the Minister can consider legitmate. Even Article 25 of the German Nationality Act (repealed this year as Germany now allows dual citizenship in all circumstances) requires one to consider/weigh competing private and public interests and to show continuing relations with Germany (Article 25 is more concrete; 6(2) contains no such helpful prompt or direction).
Thank you for uploading these videos on TH-cam
As a unisa student this really helped me, I would love to see my self at the court one day
did advocate dali mpofu not say he was only going to talk for 45 minutes-1 hour, this guy🤣😂
Bleon.dolar
I can back to re-watch after the judgment came-out.
Hey ConCourt judges! Zuma is still walking free so your Judgements are irrelevant.
Thank you for a precise and straight forward presentation
I wish the court doesn't take side of the capitalist/Coca-Cola
Ngcukaitobi 🐐 // Trengove 🐐
Ntombi yaseXhugxwala. 14/9/2023
The court is also working on information that's over two years old. And very out of date.
I like the way the Apex court justices do not distract the counsel from addressing the court time and again....they ask questions sporadically but with legal acumen and precision. Note made on Tuesday 25 July 2023.
🎉🎉🎉🎉🤣🤣🤣
🎉🎉
:) :) :) , the master of delay tactics
Adv Matlapeng. The man!!
People still takes Zondo serious. Mxm.
Ypu are not people. You are a person. Idiots do not take him seriously with their corrupt handlers.
He honestly can't be taken seriously.
THIS is law not a popularity contest.
Eishhhh🤕
So many great and brilliant minds in one video. Adv Trengove Sc Adv Mphaga Sc Adv Haupt Sc Adv Chabedi Adv Don Sekwakweng.
The court is trying very hard to assist counsel here and she is not picking up the hints
L0😊
Pp
Why the hell is this crap showing up in my feed?
Thank you for this! A very helpful conversation
What an interesting case
The counsel for the state was out of depth in this case😅
Wow! This was so informative, fun and engaging. "Courage over Confidence" love it!! And thank you guys for this. 💃🏽💃🏽💃🏽
I always get motivated whenever m listening to Justice MR Madlanga...he is one of the finest legal minds i have come across in my life. Note made on Thur 9/3/2023