From Civil Servant to Stateless: Mukandila’s Citizenship Ordeal

A man does not need to lose his freedom and his nationality on the same day, yet that is precisely the position in which incarcerated Lusaka lawyer Celestine Mukandila now finds himself, after the state moved to cancel his National Registration Card and passport while he remains in custody, effectively declaring him stateless at the very moment he is least able to contest it in the ordinary course of civic life.

Mukandila, secretary general of the Tonse Pamodzi Alliance, says he is a Zambian citizen by descent and has challenged the cancellation of his documents, arguing that citizenship cannot be revoked through administrative action without following the law.

His position rests on a specific constitutional provision. Mukandila says he acquired Zambian citizenship at birth through his mother, who was a Zambian citizen at the time of his birth in 1990 in Lubumbashi, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He explained that his mother was Ushi by origin, from Matanda Village in Mansa, Luapula Province, and that his maternal family had deep roots in the province.

Being born outside Zambia did not, in his account, make him a foreigner, because Article 36 of the Constitution provides for citizenship by descent where, at the time of birth, at least one parent was a Zambian citizen by birth or descent.

“My position is therefore straightforward: I acquired Zambian citizenship by descent at birth through my Zambian mother. I did not apply to become Zambian as an adult, nor did I obtain my citizenship through naturalisation,” Mukandila said.

He said he was approximately 16 years old when he became eligible for national registration, and therefore could not be personally held responsible for any alleged irregularities surrounding the acquisition of his NRC, since he was still a minor navigating a process his family, not he alone, would have managed.

“If the State alleges that fraud was committed in the acquisition of my NRC, then it must identify the alleged fraudulent representation, identify who made it, and establish who had the legal responsibility for making the relevant declarations at the time,” Mukandila said.

He said his family returned to Zambia in 1999, although his mother continued spending periods in the DRC because of her employment. Mukandila also questioned why his nationality was only being challenged now, when he had previously served as a civil servant and had undergone State verification processes without issue.

“The National Registration authorities themselves have previously recognised me and issued me with national documentation,” he said.

He has also demanded that authorities explain the legal basis for cancelling his NRC and passport, including identifying the alleged fraud, the authority that made the decision, and the procedure followed before the cancellation was carried out.

Mukandila said a Gazette notice could not substitute the law, arguing that public officers must exercise statutory power within the limits prescribed by law.

He said the matter was bigger than him personally, because citizenship should not be used as a political weapon against citizens holding views different from those in government.

“I demand only what every citizen is entitled to demand. Let the law be followed. Let the evidence be produced. Let due process be respected. And let the rule of law prevail over political expediency,” Mukandila said.

The case adds to a growing list of disputes in which opposition-aligned figures have found their legal standing, whether through citizenship, bail, or access to counsel, challenged through administrative or security channels rather than tested first through ordinary judicial process, a pattern that has drawn concern from legal commentators and civil society figures in the weeks following the general election.