does not meet the conditions of Section 20(2) because, having been born in South Africa, he is by that fact a South African citizen by simple application of the law and without him having to take any legal steps to prove his nationality. Hence, in 1966, he was not a subject of Her Britannic Majesty and of her colonies, nor a protected person of the English crown. South Africa was not, in 1966, a British colony. Consequently, he did not meet the conditions required for acquiring Botswana nationality under Section 20(2). 72. Section 23(1) concerns the case of those individuals who found themselves in a similar situation to that of Mr Modise: in the sense that it provided the possibility of acquiring Botswana nationality to those persons whose fathers had acquired that nationality in compliance with Section 20(1); but even the children of such persons were excluded in the light of the provisions of Section 20(2). Since Mr Modise, by virtue of the legal provisions, could not lay claim to the nationality of the new state of Botswana either by birth or by parentage [Section 20(2)], the law gave him the possibility of choosing that nationality by naturalisation[ Section 23(1)]. This text provides that all those who had reached the age of majority should apply for their naturalisation before 1st October 1968. It seems that Mr Modise who was 33 years old as of that date had not taken advantage of that possibility which was open to him for a period of two years. This explains his present difficulties, for since he had not taken the steps necessary for his naturalisation, in the eyes of the law he was considered as not being interested. 73. The argument of Mr Modise and his counsel that he was a Botswana citizen by birth and by parentage does indeed seem tenuous. In terms of the legal provisions in force in September 1966, he could not lay claim to the said nationality. He was born in South Africa and not in the protectorate of Bechuanaland. He could not claim Botswana nationality by parentage because he was explicitly excluded there from by Section 20(2). The proposition that he has never claimed any other nationality is entirely immaterial - for he did not have any reason to do so. Having been born in South Africa, he automatically enjoyed the nationality of that country. That automatically disqualified him from holding Botswana nationality in compliance with Section 20(2). He could, however, by virtue of the provisions of Section 23(1), have opted for the said nationality, but did not do so. The State of Botswana has offered all and sundry the possibility of making a conscious choice between keeping their nationality by birth and naturalisation as a citizen of the new State of Botswana. Mr John Modise could not, in this regard, hide behind the excuse of ignorance, because no one is expected to be ignorant of the law. 74. In reaction to the above claims by the Respondent State, the Complainant's legal representative submitted that such claims contained several adverse claims of facts, law, and of mixed facts and law that were untrue, self-contradictory and contested. 75. He contested the claim that when Mr Modise was deported to South Africa, the authorities there accepted him as a citizen. He pointed out that Mr Modise was first deported to South Africa from Botswana on 17th October 1978, pursuant to a directive issued on 16th October 1978 by the Permanent Secretary in the Office of the President of the Respondent State. Upon returning to Botswana four days later on 21st October 1978, he was arrested and charged with re-entering Botswana, while being a prohibited immigrant. 76. The question as to whether or not South Africa accepted Mr Modise as a national was directly addressed in the decision of Hayfron-Benjamin (Chief Justice) in the appeal of Mr Modise against his conviction in the case of John K. Modise v The State, decided by the High Court of the Republic of Botswana on 20th September 1979. The relevant part of the said decision reads: The acceptance warrant, Exhibit P2, was issued at the Kopfontein Border Post and was dated 18th December 1978, i.e. two months after the Immigration Officer says he handed the accused over to the South African authorities. Cross-examination of the witness (the Immigration Officer, testifying for the Prosecution) disclosed that he was mistaken as to which document the South African authorities had signed that day . He said: "the document P2, the acceptance warrant, is not the one which was signed by the Immigration Post in South Africa at the time I handed the accused to the border post..." The prosecution, therefore, closed its case without clearing up a matter, which apart from any other considerations, would be a factor in the assessment of the sentence to be imposed. If the South African authorities were only prepared to accept the appellant in December, the indications are that he was bundled out of the country before the necessary preparation for his acceptance had been completed and before the accused, who had been in the country (Botswana) from infancy had settled his affairs here. 77. From the above therefore, he claims that this decision, which is still uncontested, shows that the Government of Botswana has never shown and was unable to show that the South African authorities had 5