So, as you just heard, Senator Courtenay based his question on the premise that there may be persons who got nationality in the run-up to the 2012 Elections, who did not qualify.
That's an important issue for the Opposition, which is convinced that in that rush, UDP politicians helped new voters who did not qualify for citizenship to get nationality in time for the elections.
Since that revelation in January, where Former Immigration Director Ruth Meighan confirmed it in her testimony, the PUP have been pushing for the mass cancelation of those nationalities. There is still the question about those over 2,000 new Belizeans who got their nationalities in that time, and the Auditor General has recommended that this list be investigated to ensure that they properly qualified.
Now, the current Director of Immigration was hesitant to go ahead and cancel those nationalities. She was concerned about the possibility that they may become stateless, since they had to denounce their citizenship to their birth country in order to swear in as new Belizeans.
The Solicitor General agreed that it's not so simple to correct that type of fraud, if it happened:
Eamon Courtenay - Senator for the Opposition
"One of the issues that was raised by the CEO is the repercussion from a revocation of nationality, one being that if a person is not a dual national that the person may be rendered stateless. Could you share with us your legal view as to whether or not that should be a matter of concern for this committee?"
Nigel Hawke - Solicitor General
"I think critical to the process, assuming that the person is considered stateless, is having regard to, I think it is, the 1954 convention on stateless persons. I think international law dictates that we should be very cautious in how we approach that situation. A careful analysis would have to be done as to whether in fact, the person qualifies as a stateless person and if they do, international law also dictates that certain protections ought to be afforded to those persons. So, what I am saying honorable Senator is that I think we cannot approach this situation in respect of persons who may be considered stateless in a manner that is too rash. I think it requires very careful analysis having regard to our international law applications. I wish to make the point though that why I say the critical analysis is because if you are holding, there is a certain definition, article one of that convention who they define as a stateless person. And fundamentally in basic terms, it is a person who does not belong to any particular jurisdiction. If such a situation arises, I think that is when a very forensic analysis ought to be done in that particular case. But I am assuming that there will be instances where, like for example you said dual nationality. If you are granted Belizean nationality and we revoke that nationality you will just revert to your previous status, let's say you are from your previous jurisdiction A. So, only in cases, and I think international law dictates that you have to very careful in terms of our analysis of who is a stateless person. A stateless person may occur in a situation where you may have gotten Belizean nationality but as a requirement of getting that nationality, perhaps you are required to renounce your previous nationality. So, when we then revoke and you've already renounced you may be characterized or classified as a stateless person and in those instances, some serious considerations should be given before an ultimate decision is made to render that person stateless."
Email
Print