Wider revocation powers, no stated gap

Losing citizenship can end a person’s right to live in Ireland and affects their whole family. The revocation procedure was rebuilt only recently, and the Scheme would widen it again.

What the figures show

The Department already reviews terrorism, fraud, organised crime and serious-crime cases for possible revocation. Existing grounds include fraud and an overt act showing failure of loyalty to the State. ^{[1] [2]}

What Head 10 adds

The Scheme adds public policy, public order and national security as grounds. It cites a changed security environment, but gives no concrete case showing why existing grounds are insufficient. Eight cases alone cannot establish that a new power is unnecessary; the missing evidence is the specific legal gap. ^[3]

It also removes consultation with the chairperson of the Committee of Inquiry, a retired judge, when the Minister makes procedural regulations. This is not a requirement to consult the chair before initiating an individual case. Notice, representations and the right to request an inquiry remain. The explanatory note says the change creates “an enduring regulatory framework so that new regulations are not required each time this process is utilised”. ^{[3] [2]}

The Commission’s concerns, in 2024 and now

The 2024 changes followed a Supreme Court finding against the old procedure. In July 2024, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission called for more scrutiny. Its concerns included the initiation threshold, the inquiry’s independence and restrictions when national-security material is involved. That was its assessment of the 2024 amendments. ^{[1] [4]}

In its October 2026 submission on this Scheme, the Commission returns to the same points. It notes that Head 10 is the only part of the Scheme that concerns people who are already Irish citizens, and it raises two issues: the new ground, and the removal of the chair’s role in setting the inquiry’s procedures. ^[5]

A security ground, and no duty to give reasons

National security is not a ground for revocation today. Since the 2024 amendments it matters only at a later stage: the Minister need not give reasons for a revocation where giving them would be contrary to the interests of national security. ^{[2] [5]}

Head 10 would join the two. As the Commission points out, the Minister could revoke citizenship on grounds of public policy, public order or national security and, where they consider it in the interests of national security, not explain the decision. In 2024 the Commission had already warned that a person who is not told the reasons cannot answer the case against them, and that the Committee of Inquiry has no right to see the national-security evidence behind the Minister’s decision. It relies on AP v Minister for Justice [2019] IESC 47, in which the Supreme Court recognised a right to know the reason for a decision even in national-security cases, limited only to the extent needed to protect security. ^[5]

Three new terms, no definitions

The Scheme does not define public policy, public order or national security. The explanatory note explains only national security: it cites “a changed EU and international security landscape” and says “broad wording better lends itself to the variety of circumstances (albeit relatively rare)”. It gives no reason for adding public policy or public order. ^[3]

The Commission links this to legal certainty: a law must be clear, precise and foreseeable enough for a person to regulate their conduct by it. It asks whether terms that “could encompass a vast array of conduct and scenarios” meet that test, citing the Venice Commission’s Rule of Law Checklist. ^[5]

The Commission also points to limits outside Irish law. For someone whose only EU nationality is Irish, revocation also ends EU citizenship, so EU law requires the decision to be proportionate and to respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as the Court of Justice held in Rottmann (C-135/08) and Tjebbes (C-221/17). Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, an arbitrary or disproportionate loss of citizenship can interfere with private life. ^[5]

The inquiry loses its say on procedure

In Damache v Minister for Justice [2020] IESC 63, the Supreme Court found that the old revocation process lacked minimum procedural safeguards, including an independent and impartial decision-maker. The Committee of Inquiry, chaired by a retired judge, is the State’s response to that judgment. ^{[5] [1]}

The Commission’s view is that the Minister, not the Committee, already has the final word on the inquiry’s procedures, including when oral hearings are held. Consultation with the chair is one of the few checks on how those procedures are set, and Head 10 would remove it. The Commission says it is not clear that this meets Damache’s requirement of fair procedures and adequate safeguards, that it raises further questions about the Committee’s independence, and that it will inevitably lead to litigation. ^[5]

Who has to prove what

The procedure for the new ground would be the one introduced in April 2025. The Minister sends a notice of intention to revoke, and the person has 28 days to make representations. If the Minister proceeds, the person has 14 days to request a Committee of Inquiry, which can affirm the decision or set it aside. ^[1]

The Scheme keeps that procedure but attaches no test to the new ground. As the Bar of Ireland notes in its October 2026 submission, it does not say how the Minister is to assess the seriousness of the conduct, its connection to public policy, public order or national security, or the effect of revocation on the person. The Bar argues that the deliberately broad drafting minimises statutory constraints and shifts “the burden of proof heavily onto the citizen”, and that it cedes excessive discretion to the Minister rather than the Oireachtas. ^{[6] [6]}

The Scheme does not change the burden of proof in its wording; the shift the Bar describes is practical. Someone answering a notice would have to show why revocation is not “in the interests of public policy, public order or national security” without a definition of those terms. Where reasons are withheld on national-security grounds, they may not know the case they have to answer. Representations and an inquiry protect a person only if there is a standard to argue against. ^{[3] [6]}

What is still missing

No case has been published that the existing grounds, fraud and an overt act of disloyalty, could not deal with. The Department can reply that security cases are rarely made public. That makes a precise definition more important, not less: without one, nobody outside the Department can tell what conduct the new ground is meant to reach. ^[3]