Birth certificate not evidence of citizenship: Understanding the Supreme Court’s ruling

Today, I had the privilege of listening in to a debate between two lawyer friends of mine on the Supreme Court’s decision to NOT accept birth certificates as evidence of citizenship. I must say one sounded more convincing: Reason why you should choose a good lawyer when going to court. Not all lawyers are lawyers lol. But these are the points I took home to help my understanding of the ruling. Please read to the end for proper appreciation of the issues.

1. A birth certificate has no ingrained evidence of proof of identity. It does not bear a photograph. Neither does it bear any biometric tracers. Hence, a birth certificate as presented in isolation cannot be used to prove identity. Anybody at all can show up with any birth certificate and claim to be the owner. This cannot be verified unless a second proof of identity matching the details on the BC is provided and this makes it impossible for a birth certificate to be used as a primary ID. Banks, the EC and other public institutions have on this note refused to accept it for years.

2. Why then are birth certificates acceptable for the issuance of passports? So, in applying for a passport, a birth certificate is never accepted as sole proof of ID or nationality. It is for this purpose that one is required to present guarantors and witnesses when applying for passports. These are as defined on the application forms, identifiable professionals or clergyman of repute within society.

The implication is that if you are found to be lying, these witnesses and guarantors could go to jail.

So, in applying for passports, the BC alone is not legally accepted as primary evidence of identity or citizenship. Its acceptance is subject to the guarantee and witnessing provided by the signatories. A passport acquired with a BC can therefore be accepted as proof of ID and citizenship because of this two-tier process involving BC presentation and witnessing/guaranteeing. Without the second step, a passport acquired by presentation of a BC only would not have been valid for ID and/or confirmation of nationality purposes. But thankfully, that cannot happen as all passport applications are always done with guarantors and witnesses.

3. Citizenship of the Republic of Ghana at birth is independent of place of birth. That is, whether born in or out of Ghana, a person becomes a citizen ONLY IF they have a parent or grandparent who is Ghanaian. Meaning a person born in Ghana to Nigerian parents is NOT Ghanaian. However, a person born in Nigeria to Ghanaian parents IS Ghanaian (This actually is the position of the constitution as I confirmed too). Even though a BC has the nationality of parents written on it, the process of issuing a BC does not require any evidence of parental nationality. It is not stringent and only requires a verbal claim of nationality from the parents. It therefore in a strict sense only confirms that one was born in Ghana and nothing else.

The nationality of the parents as documented cannot be accepted as strict proof. Considering that being born in Ghana alone does not confer citizenship on an individual and the nationality of the parents as documented on the BC is also not according to any witnessed or documented proof, the BC alone cannot be used as a primary proof of nationality. It therefore fails the test as proof of nationality.

4. That in witnessing for a person at the registration centre, one commits punishable crime if the registrant is found to have lied. This adds weight to a witness’ testimony and this weight raises the power of witnessing above a BC. A BC if presented will therefore still require the extra layer of a witness (Remember a passport acquired with a BC has this process already done) before gaining acceptable status. If there is therefore the option of obtaining a voter’s ID by witnesses only, why then accept a BC and ask for witnesses too when the witnesses alone could suffice? It’ll simply be a redundant additional step. So, the BC is dropped again. Mind you, witnesses are not even accepted in countries with proper documentation and records. Witnessing is only a compromised method in view of our peculiar history and record-keeping situation.

These points made sense to my simple mind. In spite of beginning the discussion on opposing ends, they both ended up agreeing with the Supreme Court.