Chidimma’s pro bono attorney on backlash: ‘Decided by courts, not public opinion’

The immigration law firm representing Chidimma Adentshina on a pro bono basis in her bid to fight deportation believes the beauty queen has legal grounds to remain in South Africa.

The former Miss Universe Nigeria has made headlines in recent weeks after she was arrested in Cape Town for illegally entering the country via the Mozambique border. She is now challenging a court order for her detention amid the deportation process.

The 25-year-old was born in Soweto to two immigrants: a Nigerian father and a Mozambican mother. At the time of her birth, neither of her parents had permanent residency in the country. 

In an investigation by the Department of Home Affairs, Chidimma’s mother was found to have committed identity fraud by registering her daughter’s s birth with fraudulent documents.

In 2024, the Department of Home Affairs withdrew both her and her mother’s identity and passport. Chidimma was declared a prohibited person.

CHIDIMMA ADETSHINA: WHAT IS HAPPENING IN COURT?

This week, Chidimma Adetshina returned to the Cape Town Magistrates Court to challenge deportation proceedings against her and her minor son.

The Department of Home Affairs is seeking a court order to detain her while the deportation process takes place.  

The department has stated that she has no lawful immigration status and no valid basis to remain in the country.

Chidimma, who is opposing the detention and deportation, has argued that both she and her son – whose father is a Nigerian migrant – were born in South Africa, and the country is the only home she knows.

She told the court of her attempts to regularise her immigration status. She has also appealed to the court to have her prohibited person status lifted.

The court has reserved judgment until 19 August.

IMMIGRATION LAW FIRM BELIEVES THERE ARE LEGAL GROUNDS TO PURSUE

Speaking to The South African, Stefanie de Saude Darbandi of De Saude Darbandi Attorneys stated that there were legitimate legal issues in Chidimma Adetshina’s case that warranted judicial consideration.

The immigration attorney has previously claimed that Chidimma could retain her South African citizenship under a provision of the Citizenship Act of 1995, which states that a person born in South Africa who is not a citizen by birth may become a citizen if:

• They lived in South Africa from birth until becoming of age – ie 18 years old,
• Their birth was registered in South Africa, and
• They apply for citizenship once they turn 18.

The law firm is representing Chidimma on a pro bono basis, as she believes there is legal merit and that the latter’s case was not “unique” to immigration law.

De Saude Darbandi – who also offers free legal counsel on her social media platforms –  stated that High Court litigation was expensive to pursue for those who required legal assistance.

She said: “I do not accept matters where I believe someone is abusing the legal system, attempting to circumvent the law, relying on fraudulent documentation or otherwise acting unlawfully. If I do not believe I can properly assist someone within the framework of the law, I simply do not take the mandate.

She added, “I believe access to justice should not depend solely on a person’s financial means. Immigration and citizenship law is not simply my profession; it is my passion and my calling”.

De Saude Darbandi stated that whilst she recognised and supported the Department of Home Affairs’ responsibility to protect South Africa’s borders and to take action against fraud and abuse, she did believe that the Constitution makes provision for genuine legal disputes about the lawfulness and administrative decisions to be challenged.  

‘PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO DIFFERENT VIEWS’

Stefanie De Saude Darbandi told The South African that Chidimma Adetshina’s high-profile case had resulted in personal attacks against both the beauty queen and her law firm.

She said: “I fully respect that people are entitled to hold different views. Unfortunately, some of the criticism has gone beyond legitimate public debate and has become deeply personal, directed not only at my client but also at me.

“The public only sees selected reports and commentary. I have spent many hours consulting with my client, reviewing documentation and carefully considering the applicable law. I would not risk my professional reputation, nor would I accept a mandate, if I believed someone was attempting to misuse the legal system. 

De Saude Darbandi emphasised the rule of law, that “every person, regardless of whether they are popular or unpopular, is entitled to legal representation and to have their case determined according to the law”

She continued: “This case is not about whether people like or dislike my client. It is not about asking for special treatment.  It is about whether the law has been correctly applied. In a constitutional democracy, legal disputes should ultimately be decided by the courts on the evidence and the law, not by public opinion.

De Saude Darbandi’s plea was for the public to judge Chidimma based on facts rather than assumptions. 

“I understand that emotions run high in matters such as this. But our justice system exists precisely to ensure that legal disputes are determined fairly, objectively and according to the law.

“Our hope is simply that the matter is determined fairly, on the evidence and in accordance with the law”.