Irish Supreme Court declares law governing citizenship revocation unconstitutional
The Irish Supreme Court has declared that the existing law governing revocation of citizenship is unconstitutional on natural justice grounds due to insufficient safeguards.
The case involved Ali Charaf Damache, a naturalized Irish citizen who is serving a 15 year sentence in the US for terrorist offences. In July 2018, Damache pleaded guilty in a Philadelphia court to assisting an Islamist terrorist conspiracy while resident in Ireland. The Minister for Justice subsequently informed Damache of his intention to revoke his Irish citizenship.
The procedure to revoke citizenship is set out in section 19 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, in accordance with Article 9.1.2 of the Constitution. It provides that a person issued with an intention to revoke may accept the proposal or request that a committee of inquiry consider the case. The committee makes a report the Minister, however the Minister is not bound by this report and need only take it into consideration when making a final decision. There is no appeal of the decision to revoke in the legislation.
Damache argued that given the impact of revocation of citizenship such matters should be dealt with by the courts, and that the procedure under section 19 is an unconstituional breach of fair procedures.
The Supreme Court found that the revocation of citizenship was exercise of an executive function rather than administration of justice, therefore not a matter that must fall within the jurisdiction of the courts.
The Court was of the view, however, that due to the serious impact of revocation of citizenship, as both an Irish and EU citizen, a high standard of natural justice must apply to the process. The Court was not concerned with the independence of the committee of inquiry, but held that the process provided for under section 19 did not provide sufficiently robust procedural safeguards that meet the high standards required by natural justice. In particular, it could not be said that there is an impartial and independent decision maker where the same person who initiated the process ultimately decides the outcome. The Court therefore found section 19 to be repugnant to the constitution.
Click here for the full decision.