Генеральный прокурор Botswana v. Unity Dow

Генеральный прокурор Botswana v. Unity Dow (иногда сокращенный генеральный прокурор против Доу , Гражданская апелляция № 4/91, и известный на местном уровне как дело о гражданстве или дело Dow) было знаковым решением Апелляционного суда Ботсваны. Дело поддержало решение, принятое в Высокий суд Ботсваны адвокатом Юнити Доу , который станет судьей в Высоком суде и правительственным министром. Он объявил о положениях Закона о гражданстве 1984 года , в котором дети запрещали получать национальность от своих матерей, быть неконституционными. Это привело к принятию Закона о гражданстве 1995 года Ботсване, который устранял гендерные различия в законе. Дело заставило женщин настаивать на изменениях в законах о национальности по всей Африке.

Фон

В 1990 году , мотована Адвокат и иск истец истца в Высоком суде Республики Ботсвана оспорили национальные статуи Ботсваны . Действие, Генерал-адвокат Unity Dow v (Ботсвана) (Высокий суд Ботсваны Мисы. Доу была женщиной -коренной мосарвой , у которой был ребенок с Питером Натаном Доу, гражданином США, в 1979 году. Пара вышла замуж 7 марта 1984 года и впоследствии имела двух других детей. Из -за положений Закона о гражданстве 1984 года самый старый ребенок отдачи смог приобрести национальность Motswana, потому что она родилась за пределами брака. Их двое младших детей не имели права на получение национальности от своей матери, потому что их родители были законно женаты. Under Section 4 of the Citizenship Act, legitimate children could only derive Motswana nationality if their father was a citizen of Botswana, despite the fact that they were born in the country and had lived there their entire life.

Dow argued that under the constitution, all citizens were granted rights without distinction to belief, color, creed, origin, race or sex; were barred from receiving inhuman or degrading punishments; and were granted freedom of movement. She argued that Section 15 prohibited laws from making provisions that were discriminatory. High Court judge, Martin Horowitz found in favor of Dow, concurring that the law impacted her free choice of whom to marry, could force her to be separated from her family if her husband and children's residency permits were not renewed, and was discriminatory.

Appeal

The government filed an appeal in 1992, Attorney General of Botswana v. Unity Dow making the argument to the Court of Appeal that Dow did not have standing to challenge the law, as she personally suffered no harm, and that the constitution provided no right to citizenship or the ability to pass citizenship on to offspring. The Attorney General also argued that the omission of the word "sex" in Section 15 (3) of the Constitution was designed to allow for the customary patrilineal organization of society and preservation of the traditional customs regarding the treatment of Motswana women and therefore, the Citizenship Act was not discriminatory because it followed custom. He justified the sex-based discrimination in the Citizenship Act as necessary to preserve the male-oriented custom of Motswana society and prevent dual nationality.

Austin Amissah, Judge President of the Court of Appeal, evaluated Chapter II, Section 3, of the Botswanan Constitution which lists individual's fundamental rights and freedoms, and Section 18, which contains provisions to enforce fundamental rights of the Constitution. He found that Section 3 specifically mentioned "sex" as a characteristic defining entitlement of those fundamental rights. As it was the foundational provision of Chapter II in defining the rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled, fundamental rights could not be infringed except in the case that they impact public interests or the enjoyment of rights by others. He further found that Chapter II, Section 15 could not be separated from Section 3, as all other provisions in Chapter II of the Constitution were founded upon Section 3. He concluded that as discrimination is not mentioned in Section 3, unequal treatment could not be allowed to limit the rights and freedoms outlined in it. Specifically, Amissah stated, "I know of no principle of construction in law which says that a fundamental right conferred by the Constitution on an individual can be circumscribed by a definition in another Section for the purposes of that other Section". Maintaining that custom cannot override the constitution, as the Constitution is preeminent, he reiterated that equal protection of their rights under the law is afforded to any person, male or female, and was expressly required by the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Botswana was internationally obligated. The majority of the justices, Amissah, Akinola Aguda, and George Bizos determined that under the merits of the case, the Constitution forbade gender-based discrimination.

As for standing, Amissah noted that the respondent (Dow) merely had to have a reasonable belief that her rights might be breached to seek redress from the court. Justice Aguda agreed, stating that if Dow's husband and children were refused admission to Botswana, she would rightly feel that she had been subjected to degrading treatment and could seek relief on those grounds. The majority of justices, Amissah, Aguda, Bizos and Bill Schreiner, concurred that Dow had standing. The full bench of the Court of Appeal in a 3 to 2 majority affirmed the High Court decision with slight modifications, declaring Sections 4 and 5 of the 1982 Citizenship Act, as amended in 1984, unconstitutional. Amissah, Aguda, and Bizos joined in the majority with Cedric Puckrin and Schreiner in the minority.

Impact

The case became landmark litigation in Africa. In 1995, a new Citizenship Act was passed in Botswana, which eliminated gender disparities in the law. The case empowered women activists to press for changes to nationality laws across Africa. By 2010, changes had been made to the nationality laws in Algeria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe, to eliminate at least some of the gender-based discrimination in their nationality laws. Before 2018, 42 of the 54 African countries had changed laws which had restricted women from passing their nationality to their children. The case thrust Dow into the national and international spotlight and in 1997, she was appointed as the first woman to serve on the High Court of Botswana. In 2014, she was elected as a Special Elected Member of Parliament and served the government in various ministries until 2020, when she became a backbencher.

References

Bibliography

• Beyani, Chaloka (1994). "Toward a More Effective Guarantee of Women's Rights in the African Human Rights System". In Cook, Rebecca J. (ed.). Human Rights of Women: National and International Perspectives. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 285–306. ISBN 0-8122-3261-5.
• Coldham, Simon (Spring 1992). "Human Rights in Botswana – Unity Dow v. Attorney-General (Botswana), High Court of Botswana Misca". Journal of African Law. 36 (1). Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press: 91–92. doi:10.1017/S0021855300009773. ISSN 0021-8553. OCLC 4669289226. Retrieved 3 October 2021.
• Lederer, Mary S.; Macharia-Mokobi, Elizabeth (2012). "Dow, Unity". In Akyeampong, Emmanuel Kwaku; Gates Jr., Henry Louis (eds.). Dictionary of African Biography. Vol. 2: Brath – Haile. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 248–249. ISBN 978-0-19-538207-5.
• Manby, Bronwen (2010). Citizenship Law in Africa: A Comparative Study (PDF) (2nd ed.). New York, New York: Open Society Foundations, Africa Governance Monitoring and Advocacy (AfriMAP), Open Society Justice Initiative. ISBN 978-1-936133-29-1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 February 2021.
• Motlhoka, Thobo (3 September 2020). "Sacrificial Dow Takes One for the Team". Sunday Standard. Gaborone, Bostwana. Archived from the original on 2 March 2021. Retrieved 5 October 2021.
• Motsamai, Mmoniemang (28 октября 2014 г.). «Познакомьтесь с специально избранными депутатами» . Daily News Botswana . Габороне, Ботсвана. Архивировано с оригинала 5 марта 2016 года . Получено 5 октября 2021 года .
• Пейли, Робтел Ниджай (2020). «Женщины, равенство и гражданство в современной Африке» . В Чизмене, Ник (ред.). Оксфордская энциклопедия африканской политики . Оксфорд: издательство Оксфордского университета . С. 1834–1856. doi : 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.852 . ISBN  978-0-19-008904-7 .
• Кванса, Е.К. (март 1992 г.). «Unity Dow v. Генеральный прокурор Ботсваны-еще одна реликвия из удаленного рабства женщины» . Африканский журнал международного и сравнительного права . 4 (1). Эдинбург, Шотландия: издательство Эдинбургского университета : 195–204. ISSN   0954-8890 . Получено 3 октября 2021 года .
• Кванса, Е.К. (март 1993 г.). «Unity Dow v. Генеральный прокурор Ботсваны-сиквел» . Африканский журнал международного и сравнительного права . 5 (1). Эдинбург, Шотландия: издательство Эдинбургского университета : 189–207. ISSN   0954-8890 . Получено 3 октября 2021 года .
• Веб, Кето (14 ноября 2008 г.). "Ботсвана : Репортер . Габороне, Ботсвана. Аллафрика . Октябрь 2021 г. Получено 2 октября 2021 года .
• Суперинтендант документов (2008). Руководство по стилю типографии правительства США . Вашингтон, округ Колумбия: Правительственная типография . ISBN  978-0-16-081811-0 .