Dual Citizenship, the Naturalized US Citizen, and the Oath of Allegiance

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…” from the Oath of Allegiance

The opening lines of the Oath of Allegiance are meant to give the United States exclusive sovereignty over the newly naturalized citizen.   In other words, you are a citizen of one and only one country, the United States of America.   The idea is that as soon as you take the Oath of Allegiance and become an American, you are giving up your citizenship of your native country.

Naturalized citizens are not legally obligated to give up their citizenship of their native country.   The United States has never ordered (as far as we know) any newly naturalized US citizens to present themselves to their native country’s embassy and formally renounce their original citizenship.   In the past, the first part of the oath was never a problem because almost all countries took away a person’s citizenship as soon as they became a citizen of another country.

Legally speaking, however, there is nothing in the Constitution and there are no past rulings from the United States Supreme Court preventing the United States (via the USCIS and the State Department) from requiring all naturalized citizens to officially renounce their original citizenship to their native country as a condition of naturalization.   However it seems very unlikely that this would occur for a number of reasons:
Even in the aftermath of September 11th, there doesn’t seem to be much political support or even political will for implementing such an extreme policy.
Many foreign countries may resist implementation of any such policy.   These countries could simply refuse to accept any renouncement of citizenship as a condition of US citizenship, which the US would be powerless to stop.
The rate of naturalization in this country would drop off dramatically and alienate many immigrants, creating divisiveness and polarization in a country that prides itself on being the “great melting pot.”
More practically speaking, besides the administrative cost of implementing such a policy, the US government is ever so slowly waking up to the fact that there are more benefits in terms of economic opportunities and US cultural expansion than risks in allowing dual citizenship.
The important thing to remember about the Oath of Allegiance is not the renouncement of your original citizenship, which the US does not enforce and permits you to keep anyway.   The important thing to remember is the allegiance and fidelity you swear to the United States of America.   That’s the power in the Oath and that’s why you should display the Oath of Allegiance.   It is a reminder of the promise you made to be faithful and true to the United States.   The Oath is also demonstration to everyone else of your loyalty and the sworn commitment you made to place America first!

ndu_chucks:

You asked: How is it possible for someone to renounce their citizenship at a naturalization ceremony and then go back home with their foriegn passport? The answer is because of lack of enforcement of laws. This is not an issue of whether the US government cares about dual citizenship, but an issue of whether the Nigerian supreme court will not recognize the renounciation of Nigerian citizenship as done in a sworn oath, in the presence of a judge, as part of US naturalization process. Time will tell.

BTW, if you are already a dual citizen in the USA, there is a separate and elaborate process of renouncing your citizenship of any country. This is not what we are talking about here.

Ileke-IdI:


Who in his or her right mind would drop an international citizenship for Nigeria?

I dont think so.

eGuerrilla:

When did Bankole renounce his foreign citizenship?

When did David Mark renounce his Belizean citizenship?

ndu_chucks:

Lete just wait for the supreme court to rule on the issue, hopefully, through Akala's case.  It seems to me as if if you go in front of a judge and declare under oath, and in the presence of a judge, that you renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to Nigeria, you don't deserve to hold any elective office in Nigeria ( but its only an opinion).

@layifioren. No offense, I simply do not believe your story. Is there any way you can prove that you renounced your Nigerian citizenship as stated above?

pokur:

@ndu_chuks
The process for renounciation of Nigerian citizenship is clearly stated in section 29 CFRN,and as enunciated by Justice Adeniji in his ruling,it only applies to naturalized citizens or citizens by registration.A natural born Nigerian citizen can never lose nor forfeit his citizenship of Nigeria by just simply swearing allegiance to another state or potentate.
As an aside,citizenship by birth is also extended to all those born in Nigeria who have only one grandparent who is a Nigerian.That is contained in the grandparent clause of section 25(1b).
So,Akala or the PDP in Oyo are wasting their time and resources trying to unseat Ajimobi on such grounds.
@manny4life
A Nigerian citizen by birth,either through the parent or grandparent clause(section 25/1a-c),can contest for any elective position in the country[b] provided he or she have met the other qualifications required for such posts.[/b]

ndu_chucks:

Lete just wait for the supreme court to rule on the issue, hopefully, through Akala's case.  It seems to me as if if you go in front of a judge and declare under oath, and in the presence of a judge, that you renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to Nigeria, you don't deserve to hold any elective office in Nigeria ( but its only an opinion).

@layifioren. No offense, I simply do not believe your story. Is there any way you can prove that you renounced your Nigerian citizenship as stated above?

freshera:


Someone who is guaranteed of getting 2billion naira in  2 years with just a few flimsy trials to endure after.

Who fit make that amount abroad in that short time?

besides if war come, cameroun, senegal, ghana dey there. even south africa dey look for rich immigrants.

dem fit renounce the int. citizrnship, get the money for naija and then get another int. citizenship.

layifioren:

I didn't even see that part until I was reading pokur's response. Alright to enlighten you this was what I did. I called the Nigeria Embassy here in the US and after several trials I got the chance to talk to a rude lady on a phone line that wasn't even clear (went on a tangent just to show you how useless they are). She then told me what I need to do is mail my passport with $50 and a letter renouncing my Nigerian citizenship. I did that and boom I got a confirmation letter back from them. Are you satisfied or do you have more questions amigo?

layifioren:

I didn't even see that part until I was reading pokur's response. Alright to enlighten you this was what I did. I called the Nigeria Embassy here in the US and after several trials I got the chance to talk to a rude lady on a phone line that wasn't even clear (went on a tangent just to show you how useless they are). She then told me what I need to do is mail my passport with $50 and a letter renouncing my Nigerian citizenship. I did that and boom I got a confirmation letter back from them. Are you satisfied or do you have more questions amigo?

pokur:

@layifioren
Did u get mailed a letter by the President,FRN accepting your renounciation and a copy of the official Gazzette wherein it was published?.If u didn't get any of those,then i have to inform u that u are still a Nigerian citizen a lá section 29(2) CFRN
The president have to accept your renounciation in writing and have it published in the official Gazzette before it becomes fact/legal,he is even mandated to reject outright any renounciation of citizenship if Nigeria were engaged in any conflict or natural disaster.
Then again,the combined effects of section 28 & 29(1) makes it clear that renounciation is only applicable to naturalized citizens or citizens by registration.If u don't belong to either category,dude u are still a Nigerian.

manny4life:

Dude they just took your money and that was it, Just like that? Yo, at least I know you don't renounce citizenship like that, taking your passport ain't sh/it, sorry bro you missed.

layifioren:

Ofcourse I knew that but I still had to do it to show that I've done what I needed to do to "renounce" my Nigerian citizenship. Technically that's the process but you and I know there's no process when it comes to Naija. Atleast they sent me a letter back so they used 42 cents out of the 50 bucks  

eGuerrilla:

@Beaf,

Why don't you ask the two principals you are fielding for to issue unequivocal denials on a matter of public interest?
This is how such matters are handled in saner climes, no?

eGuerrilla:

When did Bankole renounce his foreign citizenship?

When did David Mark renounce his Belizean citizenship?

layifioren:

I didn't even see that part until I was reading pokur's response. Alright to enlighten you this was what I did. I called the Nigeria Embassy here in the US and after several trials I got the chance to talk to a rude lady on a phone line that wasn't even clear (went on a tangent just to show you how useless they are). She then told me what I need to do is mail my passport with $50 and a letter renouncing my Nigerian citizenship. I did that and boom I got a confirmation letter back from them. Are you satisfied or do you have more questions amigo?

IVY-Nerd:

Much ado about nothing, the case of dual citizenship and right to run for an office is a forgone conclusion in Nigeria, yet we're beating a dead horse. The appellate court has ruled on this matter, setting a legal precedent that is unlikely to be changed by the Supreme Court except if there is ambiguity in the interpretation. Keep in mind that Supreme court has ruled on a similar issues in the past "The Supreme Court Ruling on Electoral Act 2001 and Dual Citizens/Nigerian Citizens Resident Abroad" Check the following website for detail,    http://www.dawodu.com/aluko18.htm

I know some of us are not lawyers, thus, I don't expect us to know the modus operandi of the court. However, we can at least do some research using google or lexisnexis to search for cases relating to the issue in contention. For the record, I don't see Akala or PDP pursuing the case against Ajimobi to the supreme court because it is a loosing proposition. I don't even see Supreme Court taking up the case since the Appeal Court's and Federal Court ruling in 2004 and 2007 was congruent.

For the record, the Court of Appeal decision in the case of "Ogbeide vs. Osula {2004} 12 NWLR PART 886"  as pronounced by Justice  Adamu, reading the lead judgment, states that:

“WHEREAS a person who is a citizen of Nigeria by birth cannot have such citizenship forfeited or become ineligible to contest such elections under any circumstances even where Section 65(1) is read with Section 137. A person who is not a citizen of Nigeria can be so registered, but where he is not a citizen of that other country by birth, his registration will be conditioned on the renunciation of his citizenship of that other country. In other words, renunciation of citizenship does not apply to a citizen of this country by birth.

What one can make of that section read with Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution is that a citizen of this country by birth never loses his citizenship even where he holds dual citizenship of another country and cannot be disqualified from contesting elections into the House of Representatives for reasons only that he holds such dual citizenship.”

As such,  the Court’s pronouncement and reasoning is clear and logical and cannot be controverted. This Court of Appeal’s decision has been followed by a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja in the case of "Professor Odidi & Akeem Bello vs. INEC (Suit FHC/ABJ/CS/28/07)."   T[b]he applicants, in this case, had challenged the validity of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to disqualify the first two applicants, who were respectively the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the New Democrats Party, from contesting the 2007 presidential elections on the basis that both of them held citizenship of Canada and America (respectively). They stood disqualified from contesting the country’s presidency by virtue of the provision of Section 137(1) (a), of the Constitution. The presiding judge, Justice A.I Chikere quoted with approval the dictum of His Lordship, Adeniji JCA, in the Ogbeide case {supra} that
“A person who is a citizen of Nigeria by birth cannot have such citizenship forfeited or become ineligible to contest election under any circumstances even where section 65(1) in the present case is read together with Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution.”[/b]

The judge then directed INEC to register the two applicants to contest the 2007 election. Again, there is no where in the record that says INEC challenge the verdict in Appeal or Supreme Court because its lawyer know better. Hopefully Akala and PDP's lawyer will come to their senses soon. Except the aforementioned parties have too much money to spend on legal fees.

The jurisprudence in other countries and in international courts also follows this line of reasoning. The most recent decision on the matter seems to be the decision of European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tanase and Chirtoaca vs. Moldova, which the court delivered on the April 27, 2010. In that case, the applicants, both Moldovan nationals had challenged a 2008 amendment to the Moldovan Constitution which barred Moldovans who held dual nationality from contesting for parliamentary positions. The Grand Chamber of the Court held that the 2008 amendments were unlawful and disproportionate to any concern of loyalty the country may have. The court ruled that:


“…in a democracy, loyalty to a state did not necessarily mean loyalty to the actual government of that State or to a particular political party. There were other methods available to the Moldovan Government to ensure loyalty of MPs to the nation, such as requiring them to take an oath. Such measures had been adopted by other European countries.”


I don't intend to comment on this issue any longer because it is an effort in futility. I would rather stick with court's interpretation of Nigeria constitution as opposed to listening to "non-learned" opinions, which often the case is prevalent in our society. Adios  

pokur:

@manny4life
There no other qualification except the age,educational &political affiliation qualifications.Of course,u are also required not to have been convicted within 10yrs prior to the period u wish to contest a political position nor be an undischarged bankrupt.
Another serious factor to consider is the indegeneship thing.If u have all these covered,then u are good to go.

dancewith:

How about Nigerian citizens by descent? Can they contest? A lot of Nigerians were born in foreign countries to Nigerian citizens. Would these category of people be eligible to contest for elective offices in Nigeria?

Much ado about nothing, the case of dual citizenship and right to run for an office is a forgone conclusion in Nigeria, yet we're beating a dead horse. The appellate court has ruled on this matter, setting a legal precedent that is unlikely to be changed by the Supreme Court except if there is ambiguity in the interpretation. Keep in mind that Supreme court has ruled on a similar issues in the past "The Supreme Court Ruling on Electoral Act 2001 and Dual Citizens/Nigerian Citizens Resident Abroad" Check the following website for detail, http://www.dawodu.com/aluko18.htm

I know some of us are not lawyers, thus, I don't expect us to know the modus operandi of the court. However, we can at least do some research using google or lexisnexis to search for cases relating to the issue in contention. For the record, I don't see Akala or PDP pursuing the case against Ajimobi to the supreme court because it is a loosing proposition. I don't even see Supreme Court taking up the case since the Appeal Court's and Federal Court ruling in 2004 and 2007 was congruent.

For the record, the Court of Appeal decision in the case of "Ogbeide vs. Osula {2004} 12 NWLR PART 886" as pronounced by Justice Adamu, reading the lead judgment, states that:

“WHEREAS a person who is a citizen of Nigeria by birth cannot have such citizenship forfeited or become ineligible to contest such elections under any circumstances even where Section 65(1) is read with Section 137. A person who is not a citizen of Nigeria can be so registered, but where he is not a citizen of that other country by birth, his registration will be conditioned on the renunciation of his citizenship of that other country. In other words, renunciation of citizenship does not apply to a citizen of this country by birth.

What one can make of that section read with Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution is that a citizen of this country by birth never loses his citizenship even where he holds dual citizenship of another country and cannot be disqualified from contesting elections into the House of Representatives for reasons only that he holds such dual citizenship.”

As such, the Court’s pronouncement and reasoning is clear and logical and cannot be controverted. This Court of Appeal’s decision has been followed by a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja in the case of "Professor Odidi & Akeem Bello vs. INEC (Suit FHC/ABJ/CS/28/07)." The applicants, in this case, had challenged the validity of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, to disqualify the first two applicants, who were respectively the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the New Democrats Party, from contesting the 2007 presidential elections on the basis that both of them held citizenship of Canada and America (respectively). They stood disqualified from contesting the country’s presidency by virtue of the provision of Section 137(1) (a), of the Constitution. The presiding judge, Justice A.I Chikere quoted with approval the dictum of His Lordship, Adeniji JCA, in the Ogbeide case {supra} that
“A person who is a citizen of Nigeria by birth cannot have such citizenship forfeited or become ineligible to contest election under any circumstances even where section 65(1) in the present case is read together with Section 137 of the 1999 Constitution.”

The judge then directed INEC to register the two applicants to contest the 2007 election. Again, there is no where in the record that says INEC challenge the verdict in Appeal or Supreme Court because its lawyer know better. Hopefully Akala and PDP's lawyer will come to their senses soon. Except the aforementioned parties have too much money to spend on legal fees.

The jurisprudence in other countries and in international courts also follows this line of reasoning. The most recent decision on the matter seems to be the decision of European Court of Human Rights in the case of Tanase and Chirtoaca vs. Moldova, which the court delivered on the April 27, 2010. In that case, the applicants, both Moldovan nationals had challenged a 2008 amendment to the Moldovan Constitution which barred Moldovans who held dual nationality from contesting for parliamentary positions. The Grand Chamber of the Court held that the 2008 amendments were unlawful and disproportionate to any concern of loyalty the country may have. The court ruled that:


“…in a democracy, loyalty to a state did not necessarily mean loyalty to the actual government of that State or to a particular political party. There were other methods available to the Moldovan Government to ensure loyalty of MPs to the nation, such as requiring them to take an oath. Such measures had been adopted by other European countries.”


I don't intend to comment on this issue any longer because it is an effort in futility. I would rather stick with court's interpretation of Nigeria constitution as opposed to listening to "non-learned" opinions, which often the case is prevalent in our society. Adios[color=#006600][/color]