DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW
Session- 2015-2016

Subject: Public International Law

Final Draft
on
ON THE APPLICATION OF AL-JEDDA VS
SECRETARY OF THE STATE
SUBMITTED TO:

SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Vipul Vinod

Aditya Joshi

Assitant Professor

R. No. 13

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya

IVth Semester

National Law University

1 | Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take the opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my

guide Dr. Vipul Vinod for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant
encouragement throughout the course of the project. The blessing, help and
guidance given by him time to time shall carry me a long way in the journey of
life which I am about to embark .
I also take the opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Vipul
Vinod for his cordial support valuable information and guidance which helped
me in completing the project through various stages. I am obliged to my parents
for the valuable information provided by them which helped me in completing
ther project on time. I am grateful for their cooperation during the period of my
project.
Lastly, I thank the almighty , my friends, brother for their encouragement
without which the assignment would have not been possible.

- Aditya Joshi

2 | Page

INTRODUCTION:
As I begin with the case summary of my case i.e Al jedda vs Secretary of the
state and briefly if I describe the issues covered in the case I would like to say
that it is a simple case of the violation of the article 5,1 of the convention of
United Nations Security Council. As the applicant was held as internment in
Iraq by some U.S.A security forces in Iraq and he was held as captive for a quite
long period for almost three years. Al jedda was an Iraqi national by birth nd
moved to the UK in 1992 along with his wife and claimed asylum. In 2000 he
and his family were granted British Citizenship, upon which he automatically
lost his Iraqi citizenship1. He was detained by the US forces in October 2004
and handed over to the British Forces until 30 December 2007. On 14
December 2007 the secretary of state made an order under the British
Nationality Act 1981 depriving Al- Jedda of his British Nationality on the
ground that it would be conducive to public good. In January 2008, Al Jedda
challenged the order depriving him of British Nationality before the Special
Immigration Appeals Commission on the grounds that the order had made him
stateless and was therefore void. The SIAC rejected this contention on the basis
that Al Jedda had not been able to prove on the balance of probabilities that he
had not regained Iraqi Nationality. The SIAC was directed by the court of
appeals to rehear the issue, and held again on 26 November 2010 that he had
automatically regained Iraqi nationality under article 11(c) of the Law of
Administration for the state of Iraq for the transitional period which had been in
force between June 2004 and May 2006.

1 Provision under Iraqi local law

3 | Page

LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE.

1. British Nationality Act 1981(Section 40)
2. Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Section 4(1),56)
3. Home Office Guidance dated 1 May 2013 on Application for leave to
remain as a stateless preson.
4. Iraqi National Law No. 43 of 1963 (Article 11)
5. Law of Administration for the state of Iraq for the Transitional period
(Article 11(c))
6. Iraqi Law of Nationality 2006 ( Article 10)
7. European Convention onNationality1997(Article(1))
8. Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Karassev v finland,
Application No 31414/96 holding that denial of citizenship may violate
the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
9. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article15)
10.Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961(Article 8(1))
11.Guidelines on Statelessness No 1 issued by the United Nations high
Commissioner for Refugees on February 20,2012
APELLANTS ARGUMENTS
The Secretary of State argued that on 14 December 2007 the accused could have
applied for the Iraqi nationality but he dint apply for it and with immediate
effect and suggested that the case should be remit back to the SIAC to consider
its consequences. The Secretary of State learnt that on 20 January 2008 the
accused had applied for the Iraqi nationality with his copy of a certificate of
nationality and further alleged that a passport and a certificate of nationality was
issued to him on January 28, 2008.
Further, it was argued that section 40(4) 2 requires the real cause of
statelessness to be identified, which in this case the accused failed to apply for
2 British Nationality Act 1981
4 | Page

the restoration his citizenship of Iraq. The arguments of the Secretary of the
State were that the mentioned section should be given a purposive construction
in that where grounds from depriving someone of nationality exist she should
not be disabled from making an order, where the person could easily and
immediately avoid becoming stateless.
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS
On the point mentioned by the Secretary of State that he was not stateless was
said that it was wrong by the accused, he said that he admits that he procured a
passport but the passport so procured was a fake one and he used it to travel
outside Iraq to reach turkey where he lived for rest of the period after
internment. He also stated further that the information about his fake passport
was known to the government and its council and they had never challenged it
before. He also condemned the argument of the appellant and said he never
procured a certificate of nationality and the documents may have procured by
the some other person hired by the Al Jedda arranging for the fake one.
He also argued on the point of the Secretary of State that when he procured the
passport of the Iraq he was not stateless under the act he said that he was
stateless at the time of the Secretary of State decision to deprive him of the
British Nationality and so section 40(4) had been breached.
JUDGEMENT:
The court of Appeal set aside the erroneous decision of the SIACs that the Al
Jedda was automatically got the citizenship of the Iraq, basically the court of
appeal rejected almost all the contentions that the Secretary of State put on the
accused Al Jedda. So the Secretary of State went in appeal to the Supreme
Court.

5 | Page

The Supreme Court applied its jurisdiction wisely and said that it was not the
function of the court to decide the issue that whether the Iraqi passport used by
the Al Jedda was a valid grant of Iraqi nationality, confining itself to the
question of whether the order of depriving the accused of the British Citizenship
was valid or not.
Court identified some submissions that may be made by Al Jedda to challenge
any future decision of the Secretary of State to make a further deprivation order
at such a stage which was late because of his possession of the passport. The
court also rejected the word described in the section 40(4) of the Act allowed
the Secretary of State to go beyond the effect of the order that satisfaction of an
individual of a fact does not enlarge or otherwise alter the real nature of the law.
It further held that the section 40(4) does not no require the real cause of
statelessness, and the only question that the Secretary of State had to answer
was whether the person held another nationality at the date of the order. The
argument of Secretary of State that the analysis should be limited to whether the
person could regain a previous nationality was itself illogical and, if valid,
should have applied to the acquisition of a new nationality as well. A person
may have good reasons for not wishing to acquire a nationality available to him.
The courts decision was also backed by referring to the section 12 of the Act 3
which provide that a renunciation of British citizenship shall not be registered
unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person will after the registration
have or acquire another nationality, and if that person does not have another
nationality on the date of registration and does not acquire it six months, he
shall be deemed to remain a British citizen. Such wording is in line with the
1961 Convention and the court held that parliament could have made an
analogous addiction to section 40(4). The court noted that parliament had

3 British Citizenship Act,

6 | Page

chosen not to do so and held that therefore the interpretation put forward by the
Secretary of State was unwarranted.
REMEDY:
The remedy granted to the accused Al- Jedda was that the appeal in the Supreme
Court dismissed, and allegations put on the accused was removed.

7 | Page