No Charge, No Trial: Bahrain’s Revocation of Citizenship
By Sabahat Mazhar
A state with vague domestic law can easily invoke citizenship, even when it sits in tension with international human rights law. This constitutes only a violation of an international obligation, one with a weak enforcement mechanism but significant human consequences.
Bahrain’s recent revocation of citizenship is a case in point. On April 27, 2026, Bahrain revoked the citizenship of 69 people of Shia Iranian descent, leaving them stateless and attempting to expel them to Iran. The government accused them of sympathising with Iran and colluding with foreign entities. The revocation was carried out under Article 10/3 of Bahrain’s citizenship law, by royal directive of King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD) and Human Rights Watch condemned the move.
Within days of the directive, officials summoned the male head of each affected family and confiscated their identification documents. Families were then forced to sign documents acknowledging the revocation and agreeing to leave; one man who refused was beaten. Authorities then issued travel documents and forced families to purchase tickets to Iran via Turkey, but Turkish authorities refused them entry. A second attempt routed some families through Azerbaijan, where they were held in hotels before being sent on to Oman. Ali Abdulnabi, 31, expelled with his wife and newborn daughter and now seeking asylum in Europe, said: “I have no connection to Iran. I am not a supporter of Iran.”
What made this expulsion possible is the statutory framework behind it. Article 10/3 of the Bahraini Nationality Law permits revocation of citizenship for “causing harm to the interests of the Kingdom or acting in a manner that contradicts the duty of loyalty to it.” The law does not specify what exactly constitutes such harm or disloyalty, creating a loophole that makes enforcement straightforward. Subsequent amendments compounded this: a 2019 change allowed revocation by cabinet decision alone, without a royal decree, while a 2024 decree removed judicial oversight entirely, classifying such decisions as “sovereign acts” immune from appeal. As a result, the 69 individuals affected in April had no charge brought against them, no hearing, and no avenue to contest the decision.
This same vagueness puts Bahrain’s actions in tension with its international treaty obligations. Article 12(4) of the ICCPR, which Bahrain has ratified, states that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. The UN Human Rights Committee has interpreted “his own country” to extend beyond formal nationality, meaning the provision can apply even to those stripped of citizenship. Separately, Article 29 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, also ratified by Bahrain, states that no citizen may be deprived of nationality without a legally valid reason. Given the vagueness of Article 10/3’s own wording, what counts as a “legally valid reason” remains unclear.
Nor is this an isolated use of that vagueness. Between 2012 and 2019, Bahrain stripped at least 990 people of their citizenship, according to BIRD. The 2026 action was the first since then; in the interim, judicial oversight was removed and the practice redefined as a “sovereign act” beyond appeal. It was also unusual in composition: of the 69 people affected, 46 were rendered stateless, including 33 children, 10 of them toddlers, the youngest 19 days old.
The practice is not confined to Bahrain, either. According to the Clingendael Institute, 11 of 15 Middle Eastern political orders are classified as authoritarian, including the Gulf’s rentier monarchies. The New York Times reports that mass citizenship revocation has become especially prevalent among these states — Kuwait, for instance, has stripped tens of thousands of people of citizenship in recent years.
Where the standard for revocation is vague, so too is the limit on its use.