Foreign Debtors’ Travel Ban Plan Rejected by Government

TDT | Manama

Email: mail@newsofbahrain.com

Plans to let judges decide whether deportation or a travel ban should be enforced first in cases involving foreign debtors have drawn firm resistance from the government, which says the move threatens national security and undermines the finality of court rulings.

The Parliament-drafted law proposes amending Article 40 of the Civil and Commercial Execution Law to allow a judicial panel of three judges to determine which measure should take precedence when both a deportation order and a travel ban are in place against a foreign national. Their decision would be open to appeal before the High Civil Court within seven days.

In its formal response, the government objected on several grounds, describing the proposal as a challenge to its constitutional authority to remove individuals from the country. ‘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 — whether ordered by a court or imposed through an administrative decision — is used to uphold public order, safety, and morals, and should not be delayed by civil enforcement proceedings. Introducing a committee to assess whether deportation should be postponed in favour of a travel ban, it argued, would obstruct that process and curtail the executive’s ability to act when needed.

The current text of Article 40 already allows for travel bans to prevent foreign debtors from fleeing the country. However, it states that such bans do not affect the enforcement of final deportation rulings or administrative removal decisions. The government warned that the proposed amendment appears to reverse this, creating a mechanism that could delay deportation in favour of civil claims.

‘This interferes with a core function of the executive as outlined in Article 47(a) of the Constitution,’ the memorandum stated, ‘and weakens the state’s capacity to respond quickly to internal threats.’

There was also concern that the proposal would be open to abuse. Foreign nationals facing deportation might seek to manufacture or exaggerate debt disputes to trigger a travel ban, thereby blocking removal. ‘There is nothing in the proposed text to prevent misuse. A person could engineer financial claims simply to remain in the country,’ the government said.

The legal objections extended to the status of deportation as a criminal penalty. The government noted that deportation may be imposed under the Penal Code as an additional sentence for certain offences and that, once final, such rulings must be enforced without delay. It argued that allowing a judicial committee to delay implementation would contradict the principles of finality and legal authority.

‘A final criminal ruling cannot be re-examined,’ it said. ‘No other body may delay or undo its effects once it takes force.’

Further problems could arise, it added, from overlaps with the roles of the Public Prosecution and criminal enforcement judges. These authorities already have limited powers to delay deportation in exceptional cases. Setting up a separate judicial panel with overlapping powers, the government warned, would risk contradictory decisions and weaken public trust in the court system.

Attention was also drawn to the wording of the proposed clause, which states that the judicial panel would ‘consider implementing either’ a deportation order or a travel ban. The government said this could be taken to mean that one measure must be discarded outright.

‘This removes the balance the law currently provides,’ it said. ‘It reads not as a way to weigh both options but as a mechanism to cancel one of them.’

The draft was also criticised for clashing with the opening paragraph of Article 40, which makes clear that travel bans have no bearing on the enforcement of deportation. The government pointed out that similar wording appears in other laws, such as the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law, and that the amendment 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.’

The government concluded its memorandum by urging Parliament to withdraw the draft law. It maintained that the current rules provide a workable approach, protecting both civil rights and the public interest, and that the changes would create legal uncertainty while weakening the enforcement of final court rulings.