Rahul Gandhi’s eligibility to contest elections is questioned for his alleged dual Indian/British citizenship. Should politicians renounce their foreign passports and dual citizenship?
The Indian Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has allegedly “voluntarily disclosed” to the British government that he was a citizen of British nationality, amounting to holding a British passport. A petition has been filed in Court asserting that Gandhi’s British citizenship, if obtained after 2003/2006, should have been declared at the time of his nomination, in line with Article 84(a) of the Indian Constitution, which disqualifies foreign citizens from being elected as MPs. The case is also pending in front of the Delhi High Court.
In INDIA, the law strictly prohibits dual citizenship, meaning that any individual holding citizenship in another country cannot legally maintain Indian citizenship. This rule applies to all citizens, including those in positions of political power. The claims against Gandhi, if proven true, could have severe consequences for his political career and his role as a prominent leader in Indian politics.
This is not the first case in which politicians had issues for holding dual citizenship. In 2017 the High Court of AUSTRALIA found unanimously that five of the seven members of the Federal Parliament, including the Deputy Prime Minister and four senators, were ineligible to be elected to the Parliament due to their possession of dual citizenship at the time of their nomination to stand in the 2016 election, in breach of section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution. That provision states that any person who ”is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power” is “incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.”
In 2020 the provincial legislative body in CHINA’s Hebei province probed one of its delegates, Sun Xiang, after discovering that he was illegally a citizen of China as well as St. Kitts and Nevis. Dual citizenship is not recognized under Chinese law. In recent years, Beijing has taken a zero-tolerance position toward possession of additional passports, which some corrupt officials and political dissidents have used to flee the country.
Also in JAPAN, the question of dual citizenship becomes a critical one for those in positions and occupations for which the Japanese law explicitly states a Japanese citizenship requirement. One such position is being an elected politician. In 2016, Renho, one of the leading Democratic Party members found herself in a dual citizenship controversy as she did not fully complete the process of resolving her formal dual citizenship status.
In 2022 a Federal High Court in NIGERIA disqualified the governorship candidate Tonye Cole based on a dual citizenship suit pressed against him. The candidate was reported to be a citizen of the United Kingdom (UK) and Nigeria. In Nigeria’s political history, Cole is not the first politician to be disqualified for having dual citizenship. In July 2019, an election petition tribunal sacked Ikengboju Gboluga, a member of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) for having dual citizenship. The tribunal ruled that Gboluga was not eligible to contest the 2019 National Assembly election, having admitted in his INEC Form CF001 that he had “voluntarily acquired the citizenship of the United Kingdom” and had sworn allegiance to the country.
Recently, the Supreme Court in GHANA, in a 6–1 majority decision, struck provisions of the Citizenship Acts 2000 as unconstitutional, paving the way for dual citizens to be appointed to key government positions previously restricted to single citizens.
Also in countries where politicians are legally allowed to have dual or multiple citizenship, there is a debate whether stricter rules should be enacted. In the U.S.A., concerns have been raised about the potential conflicts of interest and divided loyalties that may arise when elected officials maintain dual allegiances. It’s important for citizens to know if their representatives have dual citizenship because both real and apparent conflicts of interest erode public trust.
CANADA doesn’t limit politicians with dual citizenship —at least 56 foreign-born members, 22 with dual or triple citizenship, hold seats in House of Commons, Senate — but the issue has prompted controversy in the past and some parties are asking for stricter rules because of the concerns that elected officials could be susceptible to divided loyalties and foreign influence by holding dual citizenship.
In SWITZERLAND, one in ten Swiss parliamentarians has a second passport and the issue remains controversial. The most recent expression of this came from party representative Mike Egger, who presented in parliament a formal information request on the issue last December: “It cannot be ruled out that members of the federal assembly who are also foreign nationals may be faced with conflicts of interest to the detriment of Switzerland”.
In JAMAICA, recently the Prime Minister Andrew Holness commented about Opposition Leader Mark Golding’s British citizenship: “the post of any individual who aspires to lead Jamaica but remains a dual citizen is both “untenable” and “incurable”. To be the ultimate executive leader of the country, you should have no other citizenship. There should be no question by your citizens that you lead that you have, somehow, split loyalties. That you have a parachute should in case anything go wrong.” Golding has indicated that he remains a British citizen, but insists that there is no legal basis for him to renounce his status in the United Kingdom at this time.
In TAIWAN, Lee Chen-hsiu (李貞秀), would be the first Chinese spouse to enter the Legislative Yuan. Questions have been asked about her eligibility, with the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) emphasizing that people holding dual nationality cannot serve as legislators.
The question whether elected politicians should renounce their foreign passports and renounce their dual citizenship remain controversial. See also Can Elected Politicians Have Two Passports? — Globalcit
Until the 1960s, dual citizenship was viewed as problematic in international law and by most states, but now ever more countries accept dual citizenship as an unavoidable consequence of gender equality (mothers as well as fathers can transmit their citizenship to the child by descent) and transnational migration (migrants and their children acquire the citizenship of the destination country while retaining the citizenship of the origin country).
As a result, in ever fewer countries citizenship is lost if another citizenship is acquired and in ever more destination countries migrants are no longer required to renounce their previous citizenship as a condition for naturalisation. (Migration Data Portal)
Dual citizenship acceptance is on the rise. By 2020, 76 per cent of 200 countries tolerate dual citizenship for emigrants, allowing their citizens to voluntarily acquire the citizenship of another country without automatically losing their citizenship of origin. But what happens when politicians have dual or multiple citizenships? Should they renounce their foreign passports and renounce their dual citizenship? In India, Rahul Gandhi’s eligibility to contest elections is questioned for his alleged dual Indian/British citizenship. In Australia, five of the seven members of the Federal Parliament, including the Deputy Prime Minister and four senators, were ineligible to be elected to the Parliament due to their possession of dual citizenship at the time of their nomination. Also, in countries where politicians are legally allowed to have dual or multiple citizenship (USA, Canada, Switzerland), there is a debate whether stricter rules should be enacted.
Dual citizenship acceptance for emigrants has progressed faster in the Americas, Europe and Oceania and more slowly in Africa and Asia (Vink et al, 2019). 61 per cent do not require immigrants to renounce their previous citizenship as a condition for naturalisation and 49 per cent tolerate dual citizenship for both their diasporas and immigrants. Among the 22 per cent that reject dual citizenship for either group, many states still accept dual citizenship if it is acquired at birth rather than through naturalisation (Van der Baaren and Vink, 2021).
GLOBALCIT’s dataset on modes of acquisition and loss of citizenship provides standardised descriptions of citizenship laws that allow for international comparison. The dataset breaks down citizenship laws into 28 modes of acquiring citizenship by birth or naturalisation and 15 modes of losing citizenship by renunciation or withdrawal. The GLOBALCIT Citizenship Law Dataset, v1.0 covers information on legislation in force in 190 states on 1 January 2020.
In particular, regarding the conditions for electoral rights, it is possible to consult the study prepared by GlobalCit that includes information on the conditions and procedures of access to the franchise in the 28 EU Member States, 20 American countries, and in Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland in 13 types of elections and for 3 categories of persons: citizen residents, non-citizen residents, and non-resident citizens.
The information provided on this article (i) does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; (ii) are for general informational purposes only and may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information (iii) this website may contain links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader; (iv) readers should contact their attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular legal matter.
Attorney at law.
One of the leading corporate immigration lawyers in Italy. Admitted to the Milan Bar Association (1988) and to the Taipei Bar Association (2016), a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and an accredited partner of Invest in Tuscany.
Related posts:
