Key Takeaways
- The Department of Home Affairs does not keep a consolidated register of South Africans who hold dual or multiple citizenship.
- This gap stems from a 2025 Constitutional Court ruling that declared the prior citizenship‑retention requirement unconstitutional, removing the legal duty to notify Home Affairs when acquiring another nationality.
- While an online citizenship portal lets individuals update their records, it is designed for individual regularisation, not for building a comprehensive national database.
- The department can only supply partial administrative data (e.g., past retention‑application filings), which represent a subset of all dual‑citizenship cases and cannot be broken down reliably by country.
- Rising political and public pressure over immigration enforcement, border control, and service delivery has intensified scrutiny of the government’s ability to track dual citizens, even as legal and jurisdictional limits constrain comprehensive record‑keeping.
Overview of the Issue
South Africa’s political discourse has increasingly focused on immigration enforcement, border management, and citizenship verification. Concerns about undocumented migration, asylum backlogs, and strain on public services have prompted calls for tighter controls and stronger documentation systems. In this climate, questions about how many South Africans hold dual or multiple citizenship have moved to the forefront, because such data are seen as relevant to assessing loyalty, taxation, and the integrity of the voter register. The Department of Home Affairs’ recent admission that it lacks a consolidated record of dual citizens has therefore attracted considerable attention from legislators, civil society, and the media.
Parliamentary Inquiry and Minister’s Reply
African Transformation Movement (ATM) MP Vuyo Zungula submitted a written question to Minister of Home Affairs Leon Schreiber, asking whether the department maintained records showing the number of South Africans who also hold foreign citizenship, and which countries accounted for the highest incidence of dual nationality. In his reply, Schreiber confirmed that the Department of Home Affairs “does not maintain a comprehensive or consolidated register of South African citizens who hold dual or multiple citizenship.” He emphasised that this shortfall was not an administrative failure but a consequence of the existing constitutional and legal framework.
Legal Background and Constitutional Court Ruling
Schreiber traced the issue to the South African Citizenship Act of 1995, which previously required citizens to apply for retention of their South African nationality before voluntarily acquiring another citizenship. He noted that on 6 May 2025, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment declaring the relevant provision unconstitutional, with retrospective effect. The ruling effectively abolished the loss‑of‑citizenship penalty for acquiring a foreign nationality and eliminated the statutory obligation to inform Home Affairs of such acquisitions. As a result, the department can no longer rely on a mandatory notification mechanism to build a complete picture of dual citizenship.
Impact on Citizenship Tracking
Because the legal duty to report foreign citizenship acquisition has been removed, the Department of Home Affairs now depends on voluntary updates from individuals. Schreiber explained that the absence of a consolidated figure reflects three intertwined factors: the Constitutional Court ruling, jurisdictional limits (the department cannot control how foreign governments grant citizenship), and the realities of global mobility, where many people acquire additional nationality automatically through birth, descent, or marriage abroad. Consequently, any attempt to quantify dual citizens would be inherently incomplete without a universal reporting requirement.
Online Citizenship Portal and Its Limitations
To address record‑keeping challenges, the department has launched an online citizenship portal that allows South Africans to confirm and update their status on the National Population Register. Schreiber clarified, however, that this platform is intended solely for individual regularisation—helping citizens correct errors or add missing information—not for creating a nationwide register of dual or multiple nationals. The portal’s usefulness is therefore limited to those who proactively engage with it, leaving a significant portion of the dual‑citizen population unrecorded.
Administrative Data Availability
When pressed for a verified total number of South Africans holding dual or multiple citizenship, Schreiber stated that “a verified total number … is not available.” The department can only provide administrative data concerning retention‑of‑citizenship applications processed over specific periods. These records capture cases where individuals proactively sought to keep their South African nationality while pursuing foreign naturalisation, but they represent merely a subset of all dual‑citizenship situations, omitting those who acquire foreign citizenship automatically or who never filed a retention request.
Country‑Specific Statistics Gaps
Regarding which countries are most commonly associated with South African dual citizenship, Schreiber affirmed that the department “does not maintain comprehensive country‑specific statistics reflecting all instances of dual citizenship.” Any figures derived from existing records would be based on partial datasets, such as retention applications that indicate an intended country of naturalisation. Because these sources exclude automatic acquisitions and voluntary updates not captured through the portal, they cannot yield a reliable or complete breakdown by nation.
Trends in Retention Applications
Despite the data limitations, Schreiber observed that applications for retention of South African citizenship show a sustained demand over time, generally aligning with broader migration patterns and socio‑economic drivers of emigration. These trends indicate that a notable segment of South Africans wishes to retain their nationality while seeking additional citizenship abroad—often for work, education, or family reasons. Nevertheless, he cautioned that such application volumes do not reflect the full extent of dual or multiple citizenship due to the aforementioned legal and procedural gaps.
Broader Immigration and Political Context
The revelation about missing dual‑citizenship data comes amid heightened scrutiny of South Africa’s immigration enforcement systems, border management, and citizenship verification processes. Public anxiety over undocumented migration, asylum backlogs, and pressure on housing, health, and education services has intensified political debate. The Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs has previously flagged administrative inefficiencies, litigation delays, and operational backlogs that strain the department’s capacity. Protests linked to undocumented migration have erupted in Johannesburg and Durban, and various political and civic groups continue to advocate for stricter border controls, tighter verification mechanisms, and stronger enforcement—placing further pressure on Home Affairs to improve its data and administrative capabilities.
Conclusion and Implications
In summary, the Department of Home Affairs’ inability to furnish a consolidated count of South Africans with dual or multiple citizenship is rooted in a constitutional shift that removed mandatory notification requirements, compounded by jurisdictional constraints and the voluntary nature of its online portal. While the department can offer fragmented insights from retention applications and individual updates, these sources fall short of delivering the comprehensive, country‑specific statistics that policymakers and the public now seek. As immigration remains a politically charged issue, addressing these data gaps will likely require either legislative reform to reinstate reporting obligations, enhanced international cooperation to capture automatic citizenship acquisitions, or innovative data‑linkage strategies that respect privacy while improving national oversight. Without such measures, the government’s capacity to monitor dual citizenship—and its implications for national security, taxation, and civic participation—will remain limited.