Celestine Mukandila: Challenges Zambian Citizenship Cancellation

• Celestine Mukandila's Zambian National Registration Card and passport were cancelled following a Zambia Gazette notice.
• Mukandila asserts Zambian citizenship by descent, born in 1990 in DRC to a Zambian mother, citing Article 36 of the Constitution.
• She challenges the cancellation, questioning why her nationality was not an issue during prior civil service vetting and NRC issuance as a minor.
• Mukandila raises concerns about a Permanent Secretary's involvement and argues that public officers must adhere to statutory powers and due process.
• She demands the State identify the specific legal basis for alleging fraud or for her citizenship cessation.

Every decision affecting a citizen must have a clear legal foundation, must be taken by the person or institution legally authorised to take it, and must comply with the requirements of procedural fairness and due process.

Celestine Mukandila has publicly addressed the recent cancellation of her Zambian National Registration Card and passport, detailing the circumstances surrounding her nationality. Born in 1990 in Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mukandila's mother was a Zambian citizen at the time of her birth, while her father was Congolese. Her maternal lineage traces deep roots in Zambia's Luapula Province, with her mother originating from Matanda Village in Mansa and family ties extending through Matanda and Mununga. The family relocated to Zambia in 1999, though her mother continued to reside and work periodically in the Democratic Republic of Congo, maintaining her Zambian citizenship throughout.

Mukandila highlights that her nationality had previously been affirmed by state institutions. She served as a Civil Servant for the Republic of Zambia, a role that required her to undergo rigorous vetting and verification processes. During this period, her Zambian citizenship was not identified as an impediment to her public service employment. Furthermore, the National Registration authorities themselves had previously acknowledged her status and issued her national documentation, suggesting a long-standing recognition of her identity by the state.

Mukandila firmly asserts her Zambian citizenship by descent, a status she claims to have acquired at birth through her Zambian mother. She clarifies that her birth outside Zambia does not, in itself, render her a foreign national. Her position is grounded in Zambia's constitutional framework, specifically Article 36, which stipulates that an individual born outside Zambia is a citizen by descent if, at the time of their birth, at least one parent held Zambian citizenship by birth or descent. This distinction is crucial, as she emphasizes she did not apply for Zambian citizenship as an adult nor did she obtain it through naturalization.

She expresses profound concern regarding the current attempt to challenge her nationality, particularly by scrutinizing the acquisition of her National Registration Card when she was a minor, approximately 16 years old. Mukandila underscores that as a child, she was not responsible for independently establishing her family history, determining her nationality, or fabricating the circumstances of her birth. She points out that the State's own national registration system was responsible for defining and applying the requirements for individuals of her age at that time.

Mukandila directly challenges the procedural fairness and legal basis of the Zambian citizenship cancellation. Should the State allege fraud in the acquisition of her National Registration Card, she demands that it must specifically identify the alleged fraudulent representation, name the individual who made it, establish who bore the legal responsibility for making such declarations at the time, and provide a lawful basis for accusing her, as a minor, of fraud. She questions why any fundamental defect in her nationality or national registration was not raised during the various previous occasions when the Zambian State had the opportunity and responsibility to verify her status, such as during her civil service vetting.

Significant concern is also raised regarding the apparent involvement of a Permanent Secretary in the issuance of a Zambia Gazette notice affecting her national documents. Mukandila stresses that public officers are mandated to exercise statutory powers, not personal ones. She argues that every decision impacting a citizen must be underpinned by a clear legal foundation, must be made by the legally authorized person or institution, and must strictly adhere to the principles of procedural fairness and due process. A Gazette notice, she contends, cannot serve as a substitute for established law, and if the State believes her citizenship ceased, it must identify the specific constitutional and statutory provision under which such an event occurred.

This case highlights the critical importance of due process and adherence to statutory authority for administrative actions concerning citizenship and national documents in Zambia. The challenge brought by Celestine Mukandila underscores the necessity for state institutions to operate strictly within their legal mandates, ensuring that any decision impacting a citizen's fundamental rights, such as citizenship, is transparent, legally sound, and procedurally fair. The questioning of a Permanent Secretary's role in the Zambia Gazette notice regarding her citizenship cancellation brings into focus the potential for administrative overreach when public officers appear to exceed their defined statutory powers.

Furthermore, Mukandila's situation raises broader questions about the consistency and accountability of state verification processes. The fact that her nationality was previously affirmed during civil service vetting and by national registration authorities suggests a potential disconnect or inconsistency in how citizenship status is assessed and challenged. This case serves as a crucial reminder that the burden of proof for challenging an individual's established citizenship or national documents rests firmly with the state, requiring specific legal grounds and strict adherence to fair procedure, especially when constitutional protections like Zambian citizenship by descent under Article 36 are at stake.

This case highlights the critical importance of due process and adherence to statutory authority for administrative actions concerning citizenship and national documents in Zambia. Lawyers should advise clients on the constitutional protections for citizenship by descent (Article 36) and be prepared to challenge any administrative actions, such as NRC or passport cancellations, that lack clear legal foundation or procedural fairness, especially when public officers appear to exceed their statutory powers.

Source: Original reporting via Celestine Mukandila's statement