A new process to strip citizenship from Irish citizens has been passed by the Oireachtas more than three years after the previous system was struck down by the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, the Seanad passed a Dáil amendment to the 1956 Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, which Minister for Justice Helen McEntee said “restores the power of the Minister for Justice to revoke certificates of naturalisation”.
The amendment is part of the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The Seanad accepted the amendment by 21 votes to eight and the legislation now goes to the President for consideration.
The amendment was introduced following a Supreme Court judgment ruling the revocation process unconstitutional on the grounds that it did not meet the high standards of natural justice applicable to people facing such severe consequences as loss of citizenship.
‘I am back in work full-time and it is unbearable. Managers have become mistrustful’
‘Remarkable’ officer who was subject to court martial should be rehabilitated and promoted, says ombudsman
Gardaí search for potential information left behind by deceased Kyran Durnin murder suspect
Enoch Burke’s father Sean jailed for courtroom assault on garda
It involved Algerian-born Irish citizen Ali Charaf Damache who challenged a 2019 move to strip him of citizenship for a terrorism conviction in the US. He was accused of leading a jihadist cell plotting attacks in Europe and southern Asia.
The move to revoke citizenship was on the basis that he broke the oath he took to declare “fidelity to the Irish nation and loyalty to the State”.
Ms McEntee said “the amendment provides those going through the revocation process with higher standards of protection and safeguards, ensuring that the new procedure is robust and fair”.
Under the measure, an independent committee of inquiry, chaired by a retired judge of the Circuit, High Court, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court and with two ordinary members “the minister deems to have appropriate qualifications”, will consider any appeal by a person whose citizenship is revoked.
Such an ad hoc committee previously existed but their decision to affirm or reject the minister’s revocation of citizenship was not binding.
Ms McEntee said “this new procedure meets the high standard of natural justice, provides more opportunity to be heard and ensures the committee’s decision is binding on the minister”.
The Minister said revocation of citizenship had been used “extremely sparingly”, fewer than 10 times since 1956 and only “in the most serious of circumstances” including fraudulent acquisition of citizenship and terrorist activity.
She said information could be withheld from the affected person on national security grounds but she said it would be provided to the committee of inquiry which could decide to provide it to the appellant.
Podcast: Stripping an Islamic terrorist of his Irish citizenship
Presented by Bernice Harrison.
Independent Senator Tom Clonan highlighted the “kangaroo court” treatment of prisoners in Guantánamo who were “denied any access or knowledge of the sensitive security information presented as part of the case”.
Fine Gael Senator Joe O’Reilly intervened and said “I don’t think you could compare this legislation to the dreadful events in Guantánamo Bay”.
But Mr Clonan said “this carries with it the risk of being a very, very oppressive instrument in the wrong hands”.
Labour Senator Annie Hoey said the amendment was only published a week ago and it was “extraordinary that there was no pre-legislative scrutiny”.
She added that there was a “lack of clarity on the appropriate threshold for the minister to initiate a revocation process” and said “it could be used in circumstances where it is not warranted”.
Independent Senator Michael McDowell claimed “the provisions of the Bill are highly suspect. The committee being established is not sufficiently independent and demonstrated to be independent of the minister.”
But Ms McEntee insisted that “this is a law that already exists and has been used sparingly.
“The Supreme Court did not challenge the fact that this is something available to a minister. It did not challenge the criteria or reasons for a person’s citizenship being revoked.
“It actually said we needed to put in place greater safeguards for the individuals at the heart of it.”
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
