Judicial Responses to Weaponized Citizenship in Zimbabwe
Published: 1/Dec/2022
Source: Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
By Farah Tolu-Honary
Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, Fall 2022, Vol. 10, No. 1
Abstract
Descendants of migrant laborers living in Zimbabwe were rendered stateless due to the Zimbabwean government’s interpretation of its citizenship laws that banned dual citizenship. Individuals with ties to foreign countries were blocked from accessing their Zimbabwean citizenship on the grounds that they must first renounce their potential claim to a foreign citizenship. Between 2000 and 2006, Zimbabwean courts were inundated with legal challenges to the government’s interpretation of its dual citizenship laws. After reviewing High Court and Supreme Court decisions, I found that the High Court continuously ruled in a way that protected citizenship rights. The Supreme Court, after being manipulated, chose a pro-government interpretation of citizenship law. I argue that a country’s highest court faces larger incentives to decide cases in favor of the government, and faces larger risks when it defects from the government’s agenda. Lower courts, on the other hand, may be structurally supported when they choose to defect from the ruling party. My findings indicate that the High Court of Zimbabwe was able to retain some independence during the Mugabe-era, despite being manipulated by the ZANU-PF government. The theoretical implication of this research provides that a manipulated judiciary will not always succumb to the government’s agenda, even when deciding the most politically sensitive cases.
Download preprint PDF: Tolu-Honary Judicial Responses to Weaponized Citizenship in Zimbabwe 2023
Download published version from Penn Undergraduate Law Journal: https://www.pulj.org/uploads/1/6/5/0/16504210/pulj_fall_2022.pdf