Passport Seizure, Retention, Revocation and Deprivation: Legal and Human Rights Implications (Part 3)
Introduction
In our last episode, we looked at the requirements of citizenship under the law, taking our cue from Sections 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 (Chapter III) of the Constitution which recognises different categories of Nigerian citizenship, namely by birth, naturalisation and registration and their incidents. Today, we shall consider whether Olisa Agbakoba’s case was rightly decided and also whether a passport issued to a citizen by birth can be withdrawn or forfeited. After which we shall take a cursory look at some laws- international and Nigerian laws guiding passport seizure, retention, revocation and deprivation, consider the human and legal implications, as well as provide some remedies. Read on please.
Was Agbakoba’s Case Correctly Decided?
This is the million Naira question. It can be seen that the Apex Court in the case affirmed the prerogative of the Minister of Internal Affairs under Section 5 of the Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to suspend, withhold or revoke the passport of a Nigeria on the ground, inter alia, of national interest. I believe that, to the extent that the Supreme Court did not consider whether that provision was a valid derogation from the fundamental right to freedom of movement within the parameters of Sections 41(2) and 45 of the Constitution, that decision was given somewhat per incuriam.
I submit that, that right (and its concomitant right to a passport) cannot be derogated from merely on the vague, blanket ground of ‘public interest’ (as provided under Section 5 of the Act) but rather on any one or more (if not all) the grounds specifically set out in the Constitution i.e., in the interest of defence, public or defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or for the purpose of protecting of rights and freedom of other persons. While it can be argued that those grounds are all in the public interest. I believe their specification under the Constitution is to prevent abuse and to check arbitrariness.
I believe that this view would be consistent with the contra-profremtum rule of statutory interpretation which states that any statute which seeks to deprive a person of his proprietary rights must be construed strictly against the law-maker and sympathetically in favour of the citizen whose right is at stake. Such laws should be interpreted narrowly and if their provisions are not strictly observed in any given case, they will be struck down. See FCDA v SULEI (1994)3 NWLR Pt. 332 pg 257 per Ogundare, JSC, PROVOST, LACOED v EDUN (2004) LPELR- 2929 (SC) per Tobi, JSC and THE ADMINISTRATORS & EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GEN. SANI ABACHA v EKE-SPIFF (2009) LPELR-3152 (SC) per Aderemi, JSC, at pg 41E-42B.
Can a Passport Issued to a Citizen by Birth be Withdrawn or Forfeited?
I believe this question is the most fundamental of all, and is at the heart of the debate which is subject of this paper. This is because, if a person’s citizenship by birth can neither be forfeited nor taken away from him or by executive fiat, he or she ought not to be denied or deprived of the symbol of that status by the same or any other means except, of course, by personal choice (that is, renunciation). In other words, I believe that the question is not so much about the invalidity of the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act vis-à-vis those of Sections 41 and 45 of the Constitution (although this is crucial), but rather, of the unconstitutionality of any law which purports to empower any person whatsoever (including the President) to withhold, revoke or withdraw the passport of a citizen of Nigeria by birth on ANY GROUND other than those spelt out in Section 45 of the Constitution.
The reason is simple: as stated earlier, if the President cannot deprive a citizen by birth of his or her citizenship (as he can do in respect of citizens by naturalisation or registration under Section 30(1) and (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION), he should not possess the power to withdraw or withhold the pre-eminent symbol of that status: his passport. If the President, as the CEO of the country (under Section 130(3) of the Constitution) cannot do that, I believe that neither should any of his subordinates or even appointees (such as the Minister of Internal Affairs) in the manner in which Section 5(1) of the Passport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act stipulates.
Summary
Nigerian Law
1. Constitutional Rights: The Nigerian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of movement (Section 41) and the right to a passport (Section 42).
2. Passport Act: The Passport Act (1961) regulates passport issuance, revocation, and seizure.
3. Immigration Act: The Immigration Act (2015) empowers the Nigeria Immigration Service to seize and revoke passports.
International Law
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Article 13(2) guarantees the right to leave and return to one’s country.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 12(2) protects the right to freedom of movement.
3. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Article 12(1) guarantees the right to freedom of movement.
Human Rights Implications
1. Right to Freedom of Movement: Passport seizures, retention, or revocation can restrict movement, violating this right.
2. Right to Nationality: Deprivation of a passport can lead to statelessness, violating the right to nationality.
3. Right to Family Life: Passport restrictions can separate families, violating the right to family life.
4. Right to Education and Work: Passport restrictions can limit access to education and employment opportunities.
Legal Implications
1. Administrative Justice: Passport seizures or revocation must follow due process, as outlined in the Nigerian Constitution.
2. Judicial Review: Affected individuals can seek judicial review of passport-related decisions.
3. International Obligations: Nigeria must uphold international human rights obligations, including those related to passport rights.
Remedies
1. Judicial Review: Challenge passport seizures or revocation in court.
2. Administrative Appeals: Appeal to relevant authorities, such as the Nigeria Immigration Service.
3. Human Rights Commission: File complaints with the National Human Rights Commission.
4. International Mechanisms: Petition international human rights bodies, such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Conclusion
A passport is a symbol of one’s citizenship. It is the pre-eminent marker, which identifies its holder as a citizen of a particular country. While you can be a citizen without necessarily holding a passport, you cannot possess a passport unless you are citizen of a country: they are two sides of the same coin.
Our Constitution has covered the field of citizenship, vide Chapter III, Sections 25 to 32 thereof which recognises three categories of citizens by birth, by naturalisation and by registration. While the last two can be taken away by the President under the Constitution, the former cannot.
The Constitution empowers the President (vide Section 32) to make regulations prescribing matters required or necessary for effectuating or carrying out the provisions of that chapter, subject only to one condition: that any such regulation should be laid before the National Assembly. Crucially, there is no role for a Minister or any other person under the Constitution in this regard, in terms of conferring or depriving a person of citizenship of Nigeria.
In other words, the Constitution has covered the field. Accordingly, to the extent that the National Assembly purports to empower the Minister of Internal Affairs to withdraw or cancel any passport issued to any person on the ground, inter alia, of public interest (vide Section 5(1) of the Passports (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act), that provision is not only otiose, it is ultra vires, invalid, null and void because it is inconsistent with the aforesaid constitutional provisions which specifically empower only the President to deprive a person of his citizenship. The mere fact that those clauses refer to ‘citizenship’ and not ‘passport’ is irrelevant; as previously submitted, the latter is but evidence of the former: you can’t have the latter without the former.
The power conferred on the Minister of Internal Affairs to revoke or withdraw passports under Section 5(1) of the Passports (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, should, ideally, be conferred on the President. This would be consistent with the spirit and letters of Chapter III of the Constitution, which clearly manifests an intention by the framers of the Constitution to confer on the President absolute control of the citizenship ecosystem – including, of course, passports. As the Apex Court famously held in OSADEBAY v ATTN-GEN OF BENDEL STATE (1991) 1 NWLR Pt. 169 pg. 525, S.C, per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, “it cannot be presumed that the framers of the Constitution intended to confer a right with one hand, and to take it away with the other”
The Constitution should be construed as a whole, and its makers cannot possibly intend to set the President up against his own appointee. The Minister is not a bean-stalk planted by Jack: he cannot outgrow himself. Under the Constitution, only the President can deprive a person of his or her citizenship and then only in two instances: citizenship by naturalisation and citizenship by registration. Not by birth. If otherwise, it would mean that the President’s appointee or agent- the Minister is more powerful than the President, which would not be a travesty, it would be a constitutional aberration.
Once the Constitution has covered a legislative field, no other person, body or authority is permitted to legislate in respect of same subject matter: ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ABIA STATE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2002) 6 NWLR PT.763 Pg 264 at 39q per Kutigi and Uwais, JSC and CJN. (The end)
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK
“As a global community, we face a choice. Do we want migration to be a source of prosperity and international solidarity, or a byword for inhumanity and social friction” (Antonio Guterres)
