Botswana sex dates
But as the judgment of the Court a quo did not refer to that aspect of the case in its determination of the injustice suffered by the respondent from the Citizenship Act, I shall refrain from going further into that aspect of the case.[5.] The case which the respondent sought to establish and which was accepted by the Court a quo was captured by paragraphs 13 to 15, and paragraphs 18, 19, 21 and 22 of her founding affidavit. I am prejudiced by the section 4(1) of the Citizenship Act by reason of my being female from passing citizenship to my two children Tumisang and Natasha. I am precluded by the discriminatory effect of the said law in that my said children are aliens in the land of mine and their birth and thus enjoy limited rights and legal protections. I verily believe that the discriminatory effect of the said sections, (4 and 5 supra) offend against section 3(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Botswana. I am desirous of being afforded the same protection of the law as a male Botswana citizen and in this regard I am desirous that my children be accorded with Botswana citizenship... As set out above, I verily believe and state that the provisions of section 3 of the Constitution have been contravened in relation to myself. As a citizen of the Republic of Botswana, I am guaranteed under the Constitution, immunity from expulsion from Botswana and verily believe that such immunity is interfered with and limited by the practical implications of sections 4, 5, and 13 of the said Citizenship Act. I verily believe that the provisions of the Constitution have been contravened in relation to myself.[4.] I should hereby add that the respondent's case before the Court a quo also embraced discriminatory treatment which she claimed the Act gave to alien men married to Botswana women on the one hand, and alien women married to Botswana men on the other.
I shall have occasion to recite them and to refer to them in some detail in the course of this judgment.[9.] The Court a quo also erred, in that instead of holding that the word sex' had been intentionally omitted from section 15(3) of the Constitution so as to accommodate, subject to the fundamental rights protected by section 3 thereof, the matrilineal structure of Botswana society, in terms of the common law, the customary law, and statute law, it held that section 15(3) of the Constitution merely listed examples of different grounds of discrimination and was to be interpreted as including discrimination on the grounds of sex', and that section 4 and/or section 5 of the Citizenship Act denied to the respondent by reason of sex her rights under the Constitution.The rights mentioned in the appellant's grounds of his appeal being the respondent's: her right to liberty and/or her right to the protection of the law under section 3 of the Constitution, her right to freedom of movement and immunity from expulsion from Botswana under section 14 of the Constitution, and her protection from subjection to degrading punishment or treatment under section 7 of the Constitution.As he said: The Applicant, Unity Dow is a citizen of Botswana having been born in Botswana of parents who are members of one of the indigenous tribes of Botswana.She is married to Peter Nathan Dow who, although he has been in residence in Botswana for nearly 14 years is not a citizen of Botswana, but a citizen of the United States of America.
Search for Botswana sex dates:
Prior to their marriage on 7 March 1984 a child was born to them on 29 October 1979 named Cheshe Maitumelo Dow and after the marriage two more children were born: Tumisang Tad Dow born on 26 March 1985 and Natasha Selemo Dow born on 26 November 1987.