OK. I’m confident (mildly) of a good outcome. Notwithstanding that Articles 5,6 & 7, taken together, seem to me to written to befuddle any reader wanting to establish eligibility around bithplace, residence etc. I’m assuming there are no other regulations that apply and impact (there may well be of course).
There are all sorts of ways to look at things when taking those 3 articles together, depending on where you place the emphasis. Many at present (especially media) putting emphasis on the a,b,c,d conditions of article 7 (lived 5 years after 18 etc).
I’m gonna put my emphasis on Article 5. Why? It has greater gravitas. Why? Because Art. 5 is the ‘Principles’. They are the first article under the section ‘eligibility to play for representative teams’. As principles, they have gotta hold a bit of gravitas.
Article 5 cl. 1 is as follows: ‘Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the association of that country.’
So, he’s perfectly entitled to play for NZ? I don’t see much in the remainder of5, 6 or 7 that rules him out. It’s a minefield however. Many things need to be established first (like proving that the implication within Art.7 is that Art. 7 is intended to apply only if you are trying to change from representing one country to representing another. He’s been sitting around for years with 2 options: represent SA or NZ. When the time came he chose NZ (as he’s entitled to according to ‘principles’ of Art.5 cl.1)
Great for lawyers, however, things considered I think I’ld rather be a lawyer on the NZ side. I’m not a lawyer so probably completely wrong. Comments?
Here’s the actual doc:
The issue is that his permanent nationality (his passport) indeed is dependent on residence within this country (you get a passport by getting residence and then serving your time).
However you cut, slice or dice this we are screwed