LONDON, England — United Kingdom Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has come under scrutiny following her controversial claim that, as a woman, she cannot pass Nigerian citizenship to her children — a statement that legal experts and constitutional provisions have categorically debunked.
Speaking during an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS on Sunday, July 20, 2025, Badenoch argued that acquiring Nigerian citizenship is “virtually impossible” and contrasted this with what she described as the UK’s more generous immigration policies.
“It’s virtually impossible, for example, to get Nigerian citizenship,” she said.
“I have that citizenship by virtue of my parents. I can’t give it to my children because I’m a woman. Yet loads of Nigerians come to the UK and stay for a relatively free period of time, acquire British citizenship. We need to stop being naive.”
Her remarks sparked a wave of criticism from Nigerians at home and abroad, many pointing to the Nigerian Constitution which directly contradicts her assertion.
Section 25(1)(c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria clearly states that a person born outside Nigeria is a citizen by birth if either parent is a Nigerian citizen.
This provision does not distinguish between male and female parents.
Legal analysts note that Badenoch’s three children, born to a Nigerian mother and Scottish father, are automatically eligible for Nigerian citizenship by birth.
“Citizenship by birth is not gender-dependent,” said one Abuja-based constitutional lawyer.
“What she said is false and misleading — a misrepresentation of Nigerian law.”
Further examination shows that while Nigerian citizenship laws do pose obstacles for foreign spouses of Nigerian women — unlike those for Nigerian men — these restrictions do not apply to children born to Nigerian parents, regardless of gender.
Badenoch, born Kemi Adegoke in the UK to Nigerian parents, spent part of her childhood in Lagos, Nigeria, where she attended school without requiring a visa — a privilege available only to citizens.
Her assertion also conflicts with numerous public cases of individuals with mixed heritage claiming Nigerian citizenship.
Notably, professional footballer Ashleigh Plumptre, who plays for Saudi club Al-Ittihad and Nigeria’s national team, represents Nigeria through her paternal lineage, despite being born in England to an English mother.
The backlash against Badenoch’s comments was swift.
“She is deliberately misrepresenting Nigerian law to justify a hard-line immigration stance,” said one Nigerian commentator on X (formerly Twitter).
“It’s both legally inaccurate and politically convenient.”
Others accused her of undermining her heritage for political capital within the UK’s ongoing immigration debates.
“She was educated in Nigeria without a visa because she is a Nigerian,” said another social media user. “Now she’s claiming her children can’t be? That’s disingenuous.”
The Nigerian Constitution allows dual citizenship, particularly for individuals who are Nigerian by birth. Section 28(1) affirms that Nigerians by birth may acquire another citizenship without forfeiting their Nigerian nationality.
Gender only becomes a limiting factor in cases involving foreign spouses, where foreign men married to Nigerian women face more stringent conditions for naturalisation, unlike foreign women married to Nigerian men, who are eligible for citizenship by registration.
There is no public record suggesting that Badenoch has renounced her Nigerian citizenship, which would be the only known reason her children would not qualify under Section 25 of the Constitution.
Her husband, Hamish Badenoch, is a Scottish banker, and their three children, by law, are entitled to Nigerian citizenship through their mother — unless Badenoch has formally revoked her own status, which she has not indicated.
As a prominent figure in British politics and a potential contender for prime ministerial leadership, Badenoch’s comments have reignited discussions around the use of misinformation in immigration debates.
While her remarks may have been aimed at illustrating perceived leniencies in UK immigration policy, legal analysts insist that accuracy should not be sacrificed in the process.
“Whether for political expediency or not, misrepresenting your country of origin’s laws is unacceptable — especially when you’re in a position of public trust,” one UK-based legal scholar commented.
