HCLQ1509
- 09.04.15 -
Petitioner
Sandaoguo
Presiding Justices
Awe, Farengeto & Hopolis
Non-Presiding Justice
Apad
Question: Is citizenship lost due to the activity requirements set out in Article 1, Section 2.8, immediately when the requirements are not met, or only when an activity check is conducted and it is noticed that the requirements are not met?
Majority Opinion
Awe, Hopolis
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 8 as set out below makes provision for the conditions under which citizenship will be removed due to inactivity:
Quote:8. Citizenship will be removed if a nation has not logged into the South Pacific forums for more than 30 days and made two posts within that period.
It is the view of the Court that the phrase 'will be removed' does not make provision for the automatic removal of citizenship. On this basis in the absence of any provisions for the automatic removal of citizenship in the Charter a nation remains a citizen until the manual act of the removal of citizenship takes place. As such, all the time that a nation is shown as a citizen they may continue to exercise all the rights and privileges that are accorded by citizenship, including standing for office and voting in elections.
Furthermore, it is the view of the Court that the Charter makes no provision for the retrospective removal of citizenship. The Court is aware that this question has practical applications in respect of the recent and current elections and on the basis of this ruling we would state that the votes of any nations that were/are still present in TSP but had/have not undergone the process of citizenship removal due to inactivity at the time of voting should be counted as valid votes.
However, this question raises some important points that require consideration by the Assembly. Not least, the Charter makes no explicit reference to who should be empowered to remove citizenship should a nation fail to meet the provisions of Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 8 or how often such citizenship checks should take place. On this basis, in addition to this ruling the Court urges the Assembly to debate this matter as a matter of urgency for the purpose of providing legislative clarity for future elections.
