Proponents of the Court of Appeal's decision argue that the judiciary is acting correctly by adhering strictly to the text of the Federal Constitution. They maintain that the court's role is to interpret the law as it is written, not to rewrite it based on social pressures or personal empathy. By requiring a legal marriage for citizenship transmission, the court is upholding the established legal framework that has governed the nation since independence.
From this perspective, the definition of a father within the constitution is a matter of legal certainty. If the court were to unilaterally expand the definition of citizenship, it could create unforeseen administrative and legal complications for the state. Supporters argue that citizenship is a sovereign right that must be managed according to clear, predictable rules to prevent potential abuse or the dilution of national identity.
Furthermore, this view emphasizes that the responsibility for social policy lies with the legislature. If the public believes that the current laws are outdated or unfair, the appropriate channel for change is through the democratic process in Parliament. By refusing to overstep its bounds, the court is effectively signaling to lawmakers that they must take the lead if they wish to modernize citizenship requirements to better reflect contemporary family structures.
Ultimately, this approach protects the integrity of the judicial system. It ensures that the law remains stable and that the separation of powers is respected. While the outcome may be difficult for some families, supporters believe that maintaining the rule of law is the most important factor in ensuring the long-term stability of the country's citizenship policies.