DURING the recent discussions around the Namibian Citizenship
Amendment Bill, it became clear that there is some confusion about the
concept of ordinary residence. Even though the Namibian Citizenship
Amendment Bill has now been withdrawn, there is sure to be future
debate about what the rules on citizenship should be.


Article 4 (1) of the Namibian Constitution provides the general rule
that a child born in Namibia to non-Namibian citizens will be a
Namibian citizen by birth if the child's father or mother is
"ordinarily resident" in Namibia at the time of the birth. The
Ministry of Home Affairs and Immigration understood that this rule
applied only if the parent had permanent residence, but the Supreme
Court found this approach incorrect.


Firstly, ordinary residence comes into play only when a child is born
in Namibia to parents who are both non-Namibian. If even one parent is
Namibian, the child is a Namibian by birth if born inside Namibia, and
a Namibian by descent if born elsewhere. But, if both parents are
non-Namibians and the child is born inside Namibia, then the child is
Namibian by birth if at least one parent is "ordinarily resident" in
Namibia at the time.


Secondly, the court judgement says that the constitutional reference
to ordinary residence does not apply only to persons who have
permanent residence permits. The court did not say that anyone present
in Namibia on any temporary permit is "ordinarily resident".


On the contrary, the court explained: "Key considerations will
include whether the person concerned normally lives in Namibia, and
is, therefore, not merely visiting Namibia, and whether the person has
no immediate intention of permanent departure."


To start with a famous situation, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt were
clearly not "ordinarily resident" in Namibia; they came here for the
birth of their child, with a clear intention to leave shortly
thereafter. Similarly, an Angolan woman who crosses the border only to
give birth in Namibia is not "ordinarily resident". Nor is a tourist
who gives birth unexpectedly while on holiday.


Suppose an employee from a South African firm is transferred to
Namibia for a one-year period on a one-year work permit. Imagine that
this employee retains a home in South Africa which she rents out for
the year, and has every intention of returning to that home in South
Africa when the year is up. That employee is not "ordinarily resident"
in Namibia.


A student on a student visa who comes to Namibia for a specific course
of study with no intention to remain is not "ordinarily resident" in
Namibia.


The court stated: "The intention to make Namibia one's habitual home
must be established by facts, which are capable of objective proof.


Evidence will thus need to be led to show that the person is
indeed normally resident in Namibia. Such evidence will include the
person's place of residence, the period of

residence in Namibia, as
well as his or her livelihood, and other relevant factors."


The De Wilde family, who was the subject of the court case, had been
living in Namibia for an uninterrupted period of over three years at
the time of the birth of the child whose citizenship was eventually
contested. They came to Namibia to invest in a business here, with a
clearly-stated intention to make Namibia their new home.


They sold all their property and assets in their home country,
registered two close corporations in Namibia and bought a residential
property in Namibia almost a year before the child's birth. They were
here on work permits, which had been renewed. Now, seven years later,
they continue to live in Namibia, they have increased their
investments here, and their corporations employ 60 people. It is clear
that this family has made Namibia their home.


The court acknowledged that someone who is present on a temporary
permit may have to leave Namibia if the permit is not renewed - but it
also noted that a refusal to renew an employment permit must comply
with Article 18 of the Constitution on administrative justice, meaning
that a refusal to renew such a permit must be for a valid and lawful
reason, and must not be unfair or unreasonable. The upshot is that it
is possible to make a place your home, with no intention to leave,
even without a permanent guarantee of being allowed to remain.


Consider the child's point of view. Regardless of the type of permit
that the parent possesses, a child of a parent who has made Namibia
their habitual home is unlikely to have a close connection with any
other country. A child in such circumstances will normally live here,
go to school here, make friends here and "feel Namibian".


There may be hard cases. In our increasingly global times, people are
more mobile than they were in the past. Some people may keep a foot in
more than one country.


This is why the court said that each case must be considered on its
own facts. No simple formula will work. However, other countries
successfully use the concept of "ordinary residence" for a variety of
purposes, and guidelines can be established on the basis of their
experience.


The court noted in this regard that official convenience cannot be
prioritised over the interests of a child, and that the Constitution
"must be given a generous and purposive interpretation that advances
the interests of a child born in Namibia rather than one that limits
such interests".


There may be a proposal to amend the Constitution on this point. Any
such proposal should be considered with a clear understanding of the
current situation.


- Dianne Hubbard, Legal Assistance Centre V.1714

One of the highlighted topics: Critical Skills Visa.

- Key Insight: Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast track to working in South Afr...
- This matter relates to critical skills visa and its broader implications.
- Individuals are advised to seek professional guidance.

Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast trac V.6139
Click here for full article

One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, became a victim of identity theft in 2012 when fraudulent transactions occurred, using her personal details.

-The Pretoria High Court found that the department of home affairs had violated constitutional rights without due process.
-Only half of Lawyers for Human Rights` test group has been unblocked, while 385 000 identities remain blocked nationwide.
-LHR appeals extension, urges affected people to seek help now.

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) are intensifying pressure on the department of home affairs over the national ID-blocking crisis, accusing the state of acting too slowly to unblock qualifying individuals despite a landmark court ruling.

In January last year, the Pretoria High Court found that the department`s practice of blocking IDs without due process was unlawful and unconstitutional. One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, a Swati citizen and South African permanent resident since 1998, fell victim to identity theft in 2012 when fraudsters used her personal details.

 V.6133
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6128
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6129
Click here for full article

A Washington state mother and her 6-year-old son have been released after spending more than three weeks in US immigration detention due to a brief trip to Canada and a small paperwork mistake, her attorney told CNN on Saturday.

Sarah Shaw, a New Zealand citizen who has lived legally in the US since she arrived in 2021, was detained at the Blaine, Washington, Customs and Border Protection checkpoint when returning home after dropping her two oldest children off at the Vancouver airport for a flight to visit their grandparents in New Zealand. Shaw, 33, chose the flight out of Vancouver because it was direct and she didn`t want her children to have to navigate a layover alone, her attorney Minda Thorward, told CNN.

 V.6130
Click here for full article

On 22 July 2025, the Gauteng High Court dismissed Sitrusrand Boerdery`s review of the Department of Employment and Labour`s refusal to issue a Working Conditions and Salary Benchmarking Certificate, an essential precondition for obtaining corporate visas under the Immigration Act.

Acting Judge Kekana AJ held that the Department`s decision was lawful, rational and procedurally fair. This judgment illustrates how businesses can - and must - structure their corporate visa applications to meet statutory requirements, and how legal practitioners should prepare robust review challenges when administrative authorities decline to recommend foreign-work permits.

 V.6131
Click here for full article

The United States could forfeit an estimated 9.4 billion dollars in visitor spending over the next three years following the introduction of a new 250 dollars `visa integrity fee,` according to industry groups, who warn the policy risks undermining tourism and costing thousands of jobs.
The United States’ decision to introduce a 250 dollars `visa integrity fee` on international visitors has triggered sharp criticism from the global tourism industry, with officials warning that the measure could deter millions of travellers and cost the U.S. economy billions.
The 250dollar `visa integrity fee,` part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed on July 4, 2025, will take effect later this year. According to immigration law firm Envoy Global, it applies to all nonimmigrant visa holders which include students, tourists, temporary workers, and business visitors particularly from African countries. V.6132
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6127
Click here for full article

1. Right to Legal Representation•You have the right to consult with a legal representative.•Contact an immigration practitioner, legal aid clinic, or attorney urgently.•Do not sign any documents without understanding them fully. 2. Section 34 of the Immigration Act•You must be brought to court with 48 hours to confirm arrest but you can remain locked up very long as courts figure out what to do with you •If you`re found to be illegally in South Africa, you may be detained for up to 30 days (extendable by a magistrate) pending deportation.•BUT this cannot happen arbitrarily. You must be informed of your rights, and Home Affairs must follow due process.- becomes a nightmare , you could lose your job , business , place to stay V.6121
Click here for full article

Driving for Bolt, Uber, Mr D, or Checkers Sixty60?If you`re undocumented, you`re risking more than just your income.The Risks if You`re Not Legal: - Vehicle impoundment - Heavy fines - Arrest & deportation - Permanent bans from working in SA V.6122
Click here for full article