Bahrain: Government Rejects Proposal To Give Courts Power Over Deportation And Travel Bans
The draft law, introduced by Parliament, seeks to amend Article 40 of the Civil and Commercial Execution Law. It proposes giving a panel of three judges the authority to rule in cases where both a deportation order and a travel ban are in place against a foreign national. The decision would be subject to appeal within seven days before the High Civil Court.
However, the government has strongly opposed the move, arguing that it undermines the state's sovereign right to remove individuals who pose a risk to society. 'The proposed amendment erodes the state's authority to remove individuals who pose a risk to society,' it said. 'Deportation is a sovereign act, not something to be weighed against private debt claims.'
According to the government, deportation is a necessary measure to uphold public order, safety, and morals. Delaying such action by requiring judicial review would obstruct and weaken the executive's ability to respond swiftly to threats.
Article 40
While Article 40 currently allows courts to impose travel bans to prevent foreign debtors from fleeing, it does not override or delay deportation rulings or administrative removal decisions. The government said the proposed amendment effectively reverses this principle, creating a mechanism that prioritises civil claims over security concerns.
'This interferes with and weakens the state's capacity to respond quickly to internal threats,' it stated. Further, the government warned that foreign nationals might misuse the proposed system by manufacturing or exaggerating debt disputes in order to trigger a travel ban and block deportation. 'There is nothing in the proposed text to prevent misuse,' the memorandum noted.
It also pointed out that deportation may be imposed as an additional sentence for certain criminal offences. Once such a ruling becomes final, it must be enforced without delay. 'A final criminal ruling cannot be re-examined,' the government stated. 'No other body may delay or undo its effects once it takes force.'
Overlaps
Concerns were also raised about potential overlaps with the responsibilities of the Public Prosecution and criminal enforcement judges. The government said this could create confusion and inefficiencies within the legal system.
It took issue with the draft's wording that the judicial panel would 'consider implementing either' a deportation order or a travel ban, arguing that this could be interpreted to mean one measure must be discarded outright. This would contradict the current legal framework, which recognises that travel bans do not affect the enforcement of deportation orders.
The proposal was also said to clash with the opening paragraph of Article 40, which explicitly states that travel bans have no bearing on deportation. The government warned that similar wording exists in other laws, such as the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law, and the proposed changes would disrupt the consistency of the legal framework.
'The two cannot sit side by side without causing confusion,' it said. 'The draft introduces a shift in direction without fitting it into the legal framework as a whole.'
Withdraw the draft law
In conclusion, the government urged Parliament to withdraw the draft law. It maintained that the current legal provisions strike the right balance between civil rights and public interest, and that the proposed changes would create legal uncertainty and weaken the enforcement of final court rulings.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Tribune
4 days ago
- Daily Tribune
Legal Reform Bill nears final review
A draft law to rewrite Bahrain's legal profession, requiring insurance, barring lawyers from public posts, and imposing fines of up to 10,000 dinars, has almost cleared Parliament's Legislative and Legal Affairs Committee, according to sources familiar with the matter. The committee expects to finish its review within two months. Once done, the bill will be passed to the Bureau, which will decide when to put it before the full chamber. The draft introduces several new requirements, starting with compulsory professional liability insurance. Lawyers would need to maintain an active policy throughout their time on the roll. Those found in breach may face a written warning, suspension, a requirement to attend training, or a financial penalty. The bill also expands the definition of misconduct to include violations of any regulation issued under the law. Civil and criminal liabilities remain untouched. The penalty of 'reprimand' is removed. Warnings must be issued in writing. A ban from practice becomes a formal suspension. Trainee lawyers Trainee lawyers would face tighter restrictions. They would only be allowed to represent clients in minor courts, using their own name, and always under the direct supervision of a qualified lawyer. They would not be allowed to open their own office. Joining the profession would also require passing a training course and an entrance exam approved by the ministry. Article 4 of the bill states that legal practice may not be combined with roles in government, Parliament, state bodies, banks, companies or associations. A Royal Decree may grant an exception, but only following Cabinet recommendation. A central roll will be kept by the ministry. It will include lawyers' names, places of residence and offices of work. The roll will be divided into categories for practising, non-practising and trainee lawyers. Further sub-rolls will cover those licensed to appear before specific courts, including minor, major, appeals, cassation and constitutional. Foreign lawyers Foreign lawyers may, under specific terms, appear in Bahraini courts if paired with a local lawyer licensed to practise at the top level. They are barred from handling criminal, administrative or Sharia matters. Eligibility Eligibility rules remain unchanged in principle. Lawyers must be Bahraini, of full legal capacity, hold a law degree and be of sound character. A new rule would require them to submit proof of valid insurance from a licensed Bahraini provider. The minister will decide the minimum coverage amount for each lawyer category. Article 12 removes reference to the Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs in relation to removal from the roll for non-payment. A lawyer struck off for failing to renew must pay both the late and re-entry fee to be listed again. Article 13 instructs lawyers who stop practising, either permanently or temporarily, to request transfer to the non-practising roll. Those who return may apply to move back to the practising or trainee roll, depending on their status. If the committee completes its work on time, the bill may be scheduled for debate before the end of the year. The proposed law rewrites how the legal trade is structured and supervised in Bahrain.
Daily Tribune
20-07-2025
- Daily Tribune
UK Moves to Strip Citizenship from Terror Suspects
UK Home Secretary Theresa May introduced a last-minute amendment to the Immigration Bill in Parliament that would allow the government to strip naturalised British citizens of their nationality if they are suspected of being involved in terrorism — even if that leaves them stateless. The amendment targets individuals whose actions are deemed to pose a "serious threat to the UK's vital interests." Under current law, the Home Secretary already has the power to revoke citizenship from dual nationals. However, this new proposal extends that power to those born overseas who hold only British citizenship. The House of Commons passed the amendment with a strong majority — 297 votes in favour and just 34 against — despite growing protests over the treatment of foreign criminals and immigrants, especially from Romania and Bulgaria. According to the Home Office, this measure will not apply to individuals born in the UK and will be implemented in line with Britain's international obligations. The policy has also received backing from the Liberal Democrats, who believe it will affect only a small number of extreme cases. Theresa May's proposal follows a significant Supreme Court ruling last October that overturned the revocation of citizenship from Hilal al-Jedda, an Iraqi-born man suspected of terrorism. The decision left al-Jedda stateless, prompting legal challenges. He is currently living in Turkey as the Home Office appeals the ruling. Immigration Minister Mark Harper defended the proposal, stating, 'Citizenship is a privilege, not a right,' and emphasized that the new powers are necessary to protect public safety. However, human rights groups have raised alarms. Reprieve, a UK-based organisation, called the move "a worrying development," warning it gives the Home Secretary sweeping powers to revoke citizenship without due process. The push for stricter laws comes amid rising concern over European extremists returning from Syria. Intelligence reports suggest that more than 700 fighters — including 250 French, 200 Belgian, and 270 German nationals — have joined conflicts in Syria, with at least 60 killed. European governments fear these trained fighters could bring militant tactics back home, prompting tighter security measures. Parliament also debated two additional proposals yesterday. The first, supported by 70 Conservative MPs, seeks to extend work restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian nationals until 2018. The second, backed by about 100 MPs and introduced by MP Dominic Raab, aims to prevent foreign criminals sentenced to at least one year in prison from appealing deportation orders. The new measures reflect mounting pressure on Prime Minister David Cameron from within his own party to take a harder stance on immigration and national security.
Gulf Insider
17-07-2025
- Gulf Insider
High Court Ends UK Govt's £7B Afghan Resettlement Cover-Up
The High Court has lifted a super-injunction obtained by the UK government that had concealed a massive £7 billion secret resettlement program for thousands of Afghan nationals, following a damning judgment that accused ministers of suppressing democratic accountability and misleading Parliament. The injunction, originally imposed in September 2023, blocked not only media reporting on a major data breach involving thousands of Afghan collaborators with British forces, but also the very existence of the injunction itself. Now, nearly two years later, Mr. Justice Chamberlain ruled that the order must be discharged, citing 'serious interference' with press freedom and a failure to justify continued leak, which occurred in early 2022, exposed personal details of tens of thousands of Afghans who had applied to relocate to the UK following the Taliban takeover. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) learned of the breach more than a year later, in August 2023, when names appeared on Facebook. Instead of acknowledging the error, the government initiated a covert admissions scheme to bring thousands of affected individuals — and their families — to Britain, while silencing any media inquiry under the cover of national security. With the approval of family reunification for all those affected, the true number of Afghans imported into Britain could be significantly higher than the number directly affected by the data breach. During closed hearings, Mr. Justice Chamberlain expressed alarm over the scale of the deception. At a behind-closed-doors hearing in November 2024, reported on Tuesday by The Telegraph, he remarked, 'When you are dealing with public expenditure of that magnitude — £7 billion — it's not possible to lose that amount of money down the back of the sofa.' He went on to highlight internal communications in which government officials discussed using a statement to Parliament as 'cover' for the scheme, rather than providing full disclosure. 'Am I going bonkers? This is a very, very striking thing,' the judge said. 'The statement to Parliament will 'provide cover'. It is a completely unprecedented situation.' The judge condemned the use of the courts to facilitate what barrister Jude Bunting KC called a deliberate effort 'to mislead the public.' The super-injunction, Bunting argued, prevented public scrutiny on key political issues such as immigration and public spending: 'It is corrosive of democracy. It prevents the public from being informed about the reason for billions of expenditure, at a time when immigration is at the forefront of debate.' Mr. Justice Chamberlain echoed this concern, saying the order had 'the effect of completely shutting down the ordinary mechanisms of accountability which operate in a democracy.' He added: 'It not only prevents public discussion of the full reasons for the government's policy. It prevents the public from knowing of the very existence of the policy.' As reported by The Times, he told the government's barrister at one of the secret hearings, 'You're going to have to say something about all of this, because you're spending £7 billion and you're letting in many thousands of people that you wouldn't have been letting in before.' The U.K. newspaper noted: 'Almost 24,000 Afghans affected by the breach have been brought to the UK already or will be in the future.' Despite the magnitude, the government had not informed the public, Parliament, or even many of the individuals whose data was leaked until now. The judgment published on Tuesday also criticized the way intelligence assessments had been used to justify the injunction. In a review that ultimately led to the order's lifting, a retired civil servant concluded that the leaked dataset posed only marginal risk to individuals and that the Taliban were unlikely to use it to identify targets. The judge found this 'fundamentally undermines the evidential basis' for continued secrecy. Super-injunctions, usually associated with celebrities, were never intended to shield vast immigration schemes from public oversight. 'When the government obtains one,' Chamberlain said, 'it is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the Court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship.' In the wake of the judgment, the government has been forced to admit that the data leak occurred in 2022 but was not publicly acknowledged until now; that it included a database of 33,000 records; that a new secret relocation program was launched in response, moving thousands of foreign nationals to Britain; and that the individual responsible for the leak has not been publicly identified or disciplined. In Parliament on Tuesday, Defence Secretary John Healey offered a 'sincere apology' and confirmed that affected individuals were only informed this week, over three years after their data had been exposed. While the government has now applied for a narrower injunction to prevent publication of sensitive personal data, the broader secrecy has been irreversibly broken. As Mr. Justice Chamberlain concluded, 'There is no tenable basis for the continuation of the super-injunction. This is particularly so given the serious interference it involves with the rights of the media defendants to freedom of expression and the correlative right of the public to receive the information they wish to impart.'Also read: 13 Pakistani Soldiers Killed In Suicide Bombing Near Afghan Border
