Over the past decades, countries around the world adopted laws that permit someone to hold more than one citizenship.
The definitive legal evidence for one’s claim to citizenship is a national passport or, internally, a national identity card. When a Ugandan living and working in, say, Germany maintains his/her Ugandan citizenship, or a German who marries a Ugandan takes on the latter’s citizenship, that person becomes a dual citizen.
Poor countries in the so-called global south came around to appreciate the rewards from allowing individuals who are citizens of, say, Britain, but had to renounce their original citizenship of, say, Ghana, to hold passports of both countries.
In the past, if a Ugandan moved to Canada and became a citizen of that country, he/she had to give up their Ugandan citizenship.
Uganda’s immigration law prohibited keeping a Ugandan passport when taking up citizenship of another country.
In effect, this Ugandan, now Canadian, would return to Uganda as a foreigner.
They had to apply for a visa, pay for it and enter the country under the same status and legal conditions as any other foreign national.
This is not just inconveniencing, it is utterly humiliating – entering your ancestral homeland as a foreigner when socially, economically, politically and everything else, you are as Ugandan as any other citizen!
Substantively, there are invaluable benefits that accrue to a poor country when its nationals abroad can retain their legal status as citizens.
It is easier to do business, buy property, undertake investment ventures, proudly and proactively mobilise resources from abroad when you do not have to deal with the displeasures of being a foreigner to the very country of your ancestors.
As a universal policy and practice, national laws tend to be discriminatory against non-nationals in a variety of ways.
Ironically though, by dint of our colonial mentality, it is common for Ugandan authorities, the average Ugandan too, to grant preferential treatment to a foreigner, especially a White!
Being a national confers certain exclusive privileges and rights, including participating in national politics and engaging in commerce without restrictions that otherwise apply to a non-national.
All things considered, there is every good reason for a government, particularly of a poor country struggling to break out of the shackles of poverty, to let their nationals simultaneously hold two or more citizenships.
But governments or specifically states, as enduring entities with certain institutional interests, have political considerations and calculations that inevitably lead them to impose some limitations on dual citizenship. This can be couched in terms of national security.
All countries, whether developed or underdeveloped, global north or south, democratic or otherwise, practice some form of citizenship discrimination, how one became a citizen or if they hold citizenship of another country.
In the case of Uganda, the subject of so much brouhaha following President Museveni’s Cabinet announcement last week is whether a Ugandan holding citizenship of another country qualifies to be a member of Cabinet.
I know nothing about Uganda’s laws, but from media commentaries, dual citizenship is a disqualification for appointment as a government minister regardless of one’s ethnicity, race, qualifications and competencies.
The core controversy turned on one Dr Lawrance Muganga (PhD), currently Vice Chancellor of Victoria University in Kampala, who is no stranger to controversy, as not too long ago he was arrested on allegations of working for a foreign government!
In fact, at the time of his arrest, it was alleged that he was a ‘foreigner’ working illegally in Uganda. Apparently, Dr Muganga carries passports of Canada and Rwanda but insists he was born and raised in Uganda, which would make him a Ugandan like any other compatriot. Under the current legal regime, however, he cannot be a member of Cabinet.
There were other cases of nominees for Cabinet who reportedly held dual citizenship but told Parliament they had renounced and retained only the Ugandan one.
But renouncing citizenship is a process, not a mere self-declaration or something that is merely waved away.
Whatever ultimately happens, including all the noise getting swept aside and the nominees taking their seats in Cabinet or dropped, there is quite a bit of egg left on the face of the appointing authority and apparatus of State.
Often, there’s little regard and respect for the law, certainly not consistently, in the way Museveni’s government operates, so it is possible to sweep aside or even find a way of bypassing any legal obstacle.
But if members of Cabinet must go through the rituals and motions of vetting by Parliament, surely, the State’s intelligence and counterintelligence agencies should first thoroughly vet them.
In the case of Dr Muganga, predictably, much of the noise is on his Rwandan roots, which he spiritedly denies, insisting he is not anything other than a Ugandan of Rwandan descent.
This shouldn’t be an issue as Banyarwanda are Ugandans and have served in prominent public positions, especially under Museveni’s regime, but dating back to the dawn of independence.