Officials of the "Court of Cassation" established a new principle in its ruling regarding the appeal of a citizen against the decision to withdraw his nationality, when it subordinated government decisions regarding the issue of revoking citizenship.
The officials of the "Court of Cassation" established a new principle in its ruling regarding the appeal of a citizen to the decision to withdraw his nationality, when the government's decisions on the issue of revoking the nationality by foundation were subjected to judicial oversight, as it is considered an administrative act and does not fall within the scope of acts of sovereignty, basing its judgment on Article 27 Of the constitution, which states that "Kuwaiti nationality is defined by the law, and it is not permissible to forfeit or withdraw it except within the limits of the law."
Noting that, the court ruled in its session, headed by the court’s attorney, Counselor Muhammad al-Sayed Yusef al-Rifai, to cancel the court’s first-degree court’s ruling in support of the appeal, and the judge’s lack of jurisdiction over the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case for revoking nationality, confirming that the ruling is right, and that the decision to revoke the nationality is not a sovereign matter. It is within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts, and accordingly, the appellant's lawsuit was returned to a court of first instance for adjudication, as it is a competent court.
The court affirmed in the text of its judgment that the appealed ruling did not differentiate between these two types of decisions related to nationality issues (grant and withdrawal) and ruled that the state has no jurisdiction to hear the case, and it is a flawed judgment that must be distinguished, especially since the appellant’s lawsuit does not relate to the decision to grant citizenship or not. Granting it to him, and then his dispute is outside the scope of the acts of sovereignty, and it relates to a work of administration that is the jurisdiction of the administrative department of the Supreme Court, cancellation and compensation.
It is worth noting that the former member of the National Assembly, Lawyer Abdullah Al-Kandari, the prosecutor’s attorney confirmed that “the ruling was based on the text of Article 27 of the Constitution that prohibits the withdrawal or revocation of nationality except by virtue of a legal text, and that the decision to withdraw nationality was not based on a text of the law, but was based on a decision by Administration, and therefore subject to judicial oversight. ”
Al-Kandari clarified that "Article 166 of the constitution gives everyone the right to sue, and the original nationality is not entitled to withdraw it by the administration," noting that "there are decisions pertaining to nationality that are subject to judicial oversight."
Al-Kandari indicated that the case “was filed against the government because of its arbitrariness by using the nationality revocation paper unlawfully and in a manner that might mean injustice and blackmail some of those who violate its policies, and for the judiciary to return to decide on this fateful issue,” considering that “the verdict is a victory for freedoms and cuts the way to arbitrariness.”