In 2015, a 15-year-old British citizen Shamima Begum travelled to Syria to join the ISIS. In 2019, the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom (UK) decided to revoke Shamima Begum's British citizenship on the presumption of her Bangladeshi citizenship, a claim which the government of Bangladesh contradicts. After a series of legal disputes, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) in February 2024 to the effect that the revocation of Begum's citizenship was lawful. 

Both under the UK citizenship law (section 40 of the British Nationality Act, 1981) and international law (article 8(1) of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness), the UK government cannot revoke one's citizenship if such deprivation would leave them stateless. Hence, the revocation of Begum's citizenship is supposed to be dismissed if she is proven not to be a citizen of Bangladesh.  

The government of Bangladesh denies the assertion of her being a Bangladeshi citizen. A foreign ministry official statement states that Begum is a British citizen by birth and has never applied for dual nationality with Bangladesh; neither has she ever visited Bangladesh in the past despite her parental lineage. Whether Begum is a Bangladeshi citizen, is certainly a contentious legal issue, and requires elaborate exploration, which we hold out for some other time.

Against the backdrop of the official position of Bangladesh, the only viable solution to prevent Begum from becoming stateless was to retain her British citizenship through appeal. However, the SIAC gave the verdict against Begum, leading her case to the Court of Appeals. And the recent ruling by the Court has further complicated the issue for Begum.  

Five arguments were presented in her appeal against the decision of the SIAC, covering various aspects, including the claim that the Secretary of State has failed to recognise a plausible suspicion of trafficking (which would be a violation of article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights), the potential occurrence of de facto statelessness, and procedural unfairness. The Court rejected all the claims and noted that these obligations, as outlined in article 4, encompass legislative, operational, and investigative responsibilities. The court clarified that there were no violations of the operational duties, and the UK government was not obliged to repatriate Shamima Begum to the UK due to the lack of a causal connection between the alleged breaches in 2015 and the decision to deprive her of citizenship in 2019. 

The UK Supreme Court, in the case of State of the Home Department v Al Jedda (2013) affirmed that the act of revoking British citizenship is deemed illegal if it renders an individual stateless. However, after the incident of 9/11, citizenship has been stripped due to national security concerns on several occasions.

Shifting the focus to investigative requirements, the court ruled that the Secretary of State was not required to investigate suspected violations of a protective duty aimed at safeguarding potential victims of trafficking from harms. The court justified its position by stating that it would require her presence in the UK for an investigation, which would ultimately contradict previous decisions.

Regarding the contention on de facto statelessness, the court, acting similarly to SIAC, rejected the claim made. De facto statelessness refers to the situation where an individual may technically hold citizenship in another country but has no practical place to reside. The court outlined its decision, claiming that the government had considered her circumstances but decided to revoke her British citizenship owing to national security concerns.

Furthermore, while acknowledging the importance of ensuring fair representation in legal matters, the Court concluded that there is no mandatory requirement for representation before depriving an individual of citizenship on national security grounds. Additionally, the court acknowledged that even with legal representation, the outcome would likely have remained unchanged.

The UK Supreme Court, in the case of State of the Home Department v Al Jedda (2013) affirmed that the act of revoking British citizenship is deemed illegal if it renders an individual stateless. However, after 9/11, citizenship has been stripped due to national security concerns on several occasions. Hence, it can be said that this case emphasises the conflict between national security considerations and the right to citizenship, which has been debated in international law for a long time. The broad discretionary power granted to the Secretary of State poses challenges to the concept of citizenship as a paradigmatic right.  

The writers are official contributors, Law Desk, The Daily Star.