After a lapse of more than three years, the Irish Oireachtas has approved a fresh procedure to withdraw citizenship from Irish citizens. The move follows the rejection of the earlier system by the Supreme Court. The Seanad accepted a modification to the 1956 Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act from the Dáil on Wednesday, that, according to Justice Minister Helen McEntee, “enables the Justice Minister to withdraw naturalisation certificates.”
With this modification, she claimed, those who have their citizenship revoked will have greater safeguarding and security, ensuring the new system is both rigorous and fair. This change is a component of the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law, and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The Seanad passed the change by a margin of 21 to eight votes, and the legislation is now to be forwarded to the President for assessment.
The introduction of this change was precipitated by a Supreme Court decision that ruled the revocation procedure unlawful on the premise that it lacked the required fairness necessary in dealing with the potential loss of citizenship. This case involved the Algerian-born Irish national, Ali Charaf Damache, who contested a 2019 attempt to deny him his citizenship due to a conviction for terrorism in America. He was alleged to have masterminded a jihadist group intending on executing attacks in Europe and Southern Asia.
His citizenship revocation was grounded on his breach of the pledge of “loyalty to the State and fidelity to the Irish nation”. In line with the amendment, Justice Minister McEntee attested, there will be an improved safeguarding and protection provision for those whose citizenship is revoked. This ensures the procedure is rigorous and equitable.
A solitary committee, chaired by a retired justice of the Circuit, High Court, Court of Appeal, or Supreme Court and joined by two other members deemed qualified by the minister, will handle the appeal of a person whose citizenship has been withdrawn under the new measure. While such a committee existed before, their decision regarding the minister’s withdrawal of citizenship was not mandatory.
Ms McEntee professed the new process upholds a superior standard of fair treatment, allows for more engagement, and makes sure the committee’s verdict is obligatory on the minister. According to the minister, citizenship revocation has been minimally executed, less than 10 instances since 1956, and only in extreme situations, encompassing deceptive citizenship acquisition and terrorist activities.
She mentioned there might be cases where information might be exempted from the person concerned due to national security reasons, but the inquest committee would have access to it and might decide to share it with the appellant.
The topic of prisoners receiving unjust treatment akin to that in Guantánamo was brought up by Independent Senator Tom Clonan. However, Fine Gael Senator Joe O’Reilly intervened, claiming the legislation comparison with the horrific occurrences in Guantánamo Bay was unjustifiable. Despite this, Mr Clonan emphasised potential misuse of this tool in the incorrect hands.
Labour Senator Annie Hoey noted the amendment had only been made public a week prior without any previous legislative review. This lack of clarity regarding the exact conditions the Minister needs to trigger a revocation procedure raised concerns that the tool might be wrongly used.
Independent Senator Michael McDowell questioned the bill’s provisions, expressing doubts about the impartiality of the established committee and its independence from the Minister. Nonetheless, Ms McEntee re-emphasised that this law already exists and its use has been limited.
It was affirmed by the Supreme Court that this tool is legitimately available to a minister without contesting the basis on which citizenship could be withdrawn. They rather suggested that additional safety measures for the individual concern were essential.