Dr. Bahaa Helmy writes: Deprivation of Nationality and International Standards

There has been much talk recently about the government's approval of the draft amendments to Law No. 26 of 1975 on Egyptian Nationality, particularly with regard to the cases in which Egyptian nationality may be withdrawn or revoked. Two opposing trends have emerged: the first champions the sovereignty and right of the state, under international law, to enact laws governing the acquisition, renunciation or loss of nationality, while the second points to the restrictions placed on the state's authority by international human rights standards, given the grave consequences that such deprivation entails where it results in statelessness.

Stateless persons lose many rights, such as residence, personal status, and the right to join associations and political parties. They are deprived of diplomatic protection and are unable to obtain a passport or identity card from their homeland, since they are regarded as having been expelled by the state that revoked their nationality, in addition to the psychological suffering that comes with being stateless. The 1954 Convention defines a stateless person as a person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law.

As usual, there are those who exploit such cases to stir up controversy and confusion in public opinion, as long as there are indications that these cases correspond to certain members of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, which may expose them to deprivation of nationality. This has prompted them to focus their efforts on trying to mobilize domestic and international public opinion to launch a new round against Egypt, portraying the government's proposals, contrary to the truth, as an arbitrary act on the part of the state or as politically motivated.

We therefore see the importance of clarifying these matters in order to understand the legal situation and the extent of its conformity with international standards such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international conventions, and the instruments issued by United Nations bodies relating to the right to nationality and the guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of it.

We find that the Constitution provides for the right to nationality for anyone born to an Egyptian father or an Egyptian mother, and that legal recognition of this right and the issuing of official documents proving one's personal data is a right guaranteed and regulated by law.

The law sets out the conditions for acquiring nationality and also specifies the cases in which nationality may be revoked. The amendment proposed by the Council of Ministers adds two new cases to the seven cases provided for in the law for the revocation of nationality, namely: (anyone who acquired Egyptian nationality through fraud or on the basis of false statements, or against whom a court judgment has been issued establishing that he has joined any group, body, organization, gang or any entity of whatever nature, inside or outside the country, that aims to undermine the public order of the state, or to subvert its social, economic or political order by force or by any unlawful means / the issuance of a conviction for a crime harmful to state security from abroad or at home).

International standards refer both to the right to nationality and to the right of the state to make the granting of its nationality subject to conditions, such as that the person concerned has not been convicted of a crime against national security, or that nationality was not obtained by submitting false information or by fraud, or where the person conducts himself in a manner inconsistent with his duty of loyalty to the state, or in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state, alongside a range of other cases referred to in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. International standards also require that deprivation of nationality not be arbitrary or based on «racial — ethnic — religious — political» grounds, and that procedures for deprivation or stripping of nationality be accompanied by full procedural guarantees, such as the right to a fair trial.

It is clear that the government's proposals are consistent with international standards, except that the authority to issue the decision to deprive a person of nationality would lie with the administration. We therefore consider it appropriate that the revocation of nationality be by court judgment, and that the phrase «the public order of the state» be deleted from the government's proposal to avoid repetition and any suspicion of unconstitutionality. We also call for mobilizing the National Council for Human Rights and for the participation of civil society organizations in the ongoing events and discussions, so that they may perform their national and humanitarian role and counter, as they arise, the fallacies that surface.