Government rejects proposal to give courts power over deportation and travel bans

TDT | Manama

Email: mail@newsofbahrain.com

A proposal to hand over travel ban and deportation decisions to the judiciary has hit a roadblock, with the government warning it poses a direct threat to national security.

The draft law, introduced by Parliament, seeks to amend Article 40 of the Civil and Commercial Execution Law. It proposes giving a panel of three judges the authority to rule in cases where both a deportation order and a travel ban are in place against a foreign national. The decision would be subject to appeal within seven days before the High Civil Court.

However, the government has strongly opposed the move, arguing that it undermines the state’s sovereign right to remove individuals who pose a risk to society. “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 is a necessary measure to uphold public order, safety, and morals. Delaying such action by requiring judicial review would obstruct and weaken the executive’s ability to respond swiftly to threats.

Article 40

While Article 40 currently allows courts to impose travel bans to prevent foreign debtors from fleeing, it does not override or delay deportation rulings or administrative removal decisions. The government said the proposed amendment effectively reverses this principle, creating a mechanism that prioritises civil claims over security concerns.

“This interferes with and weakens the state’s capacity to respond quickly to internal threats,” it stated. Further, the government warned that foreign nationals might misuse the proposed system by manufacturing or exaggerating debt disputes in order to trigger a travel ban and block deportation. “There is nothing in the proposed text to prevent misuse,” the memorandum noted.

It also pointed out that deportation may be imposed as an additional sentence for certain criminal offences. Once such a ruling becomes final, it must be enforced without delay. “A final criminal ruling cannot be re-examined,” the government stated. “No other body may delay or undo its effects once it takes force.”

Overlaps

Concerns were also raised about potential ove rlaps with the responsibilities of the Public Prosecution and criminal enforcement judges. The government said this could create confusion and inefficiencies within the legal system.

It took issue with the draft’s wording that the judicial panel would “consider implementing either” a deportation order or a travel ban, arguing that this could be interpreted to mean one measure must be discarded outright. This would contradict the current legal framework, which recognises that travel bans do not affect the enforcement of deportation orders.

The proposal was also said to clash with the opening paragraph of Article 40, which explicitly states that travel bans have no bearing on deportation. The government warned that similar wording exists in other laws, such as the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law, and the proposed changes 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.”

Withdraw the draft law

In conclusion, the government urged Parliament to withdraw the draft law. It maintained that the current legal provisions strike the right balance between civil rights and public interest, and that the proposed changes would create legal uncertainty and weaken the enforcement of final court rulings.